Lawsuits filed by RAM attendees make me HOT

[ChriswUfGator]

Well then I stand corrected, on that.

But this insurance industry spawned "frivolous lawsuit" B.S. is still a bunch of malarkey...

[Dog Walker]

Sorry Chris, it's not just the doctors, but all of us in business who have to buy horridly expensive insurance policies to protect us from unwarranted lawsuits.  All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements.  It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.

I own some commercial rental property and require all of my tenants to have liability insurance coverage as a lease requirement.  I still pay thousands of dollars a year for my own coverage on top of their coverage because I am always named in a lawsuit as the building owner in any lawsuit against them.

If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do.  Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW)  they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.

[Dog Walker]

Chris, I blame both the insurance industry AND the plaintiff's bar.  It's a nasty little game they have going at the expense of all of us.  They settle for as little as they can and the personal injury lawyer takes 40-50%.

We need tighter legal standard on what constitutes "cause" for lawsuits and an end to "joint and several" liability where I could be deemed 1% at fault and have to pay 100% of the damages because my tenant has declared bankruptcy.

Contingency lawsuits are actually grounds for disbarment in most countries.

[ChriswUfGator]

Sorry Chris, it's not just the doctors, but all of us in business who have to buy horridly expensive insurance policies to protect us from unwarranted lawsuits.  All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements.  It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.

I own some commercial rental property and require all of my tenants to have liability insurance coverage as a lease requirement.  I still pay thousands of dollars a year for my own coverage on top of their coverage because I am always named in a lawsuit as the building owner in any lawsuit against them.

If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do.  Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW)  they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.

You aren't looking at the whole picture.

The fact is that the insurance companies fight injured victims tooth and nail, usually pay as little as possible in claims, and then still turn around and gouge you guys on your premiums anyway. You're blaming the wrong party here. Not coincidence either, since the same greedy insurance companies that are raping you on premiums, and then denying claims by injured parties (who wouldn't even have to hire a lawyer in the first place, if they adjusted claims fairly) are the very same people telling you it's lawyers to blame. Meanwhile, nobody seems to notice the insurance industry's profit margins are only growing fatter...

The truth is that an increasingly small percentage of premiums collected are actually paid out in claims, and you're being duped along with the rest of this state as to who is to blame for it. It's not lawyers, it's the insurance industry, which has unilaterally decided it can insure against essentially no risk and still collect premiums anyway. And to add insult to injury, you're being duped by advertising campaigns funded by your own artificially inflated insurance premiums.

You're a businessman you must have some common sense to get where you are, look at the big picture here.

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, I blame both the insurance industry AND the plaintiff's bar.  It's a nasty little game they have going at the expense of all of us.  They settle for as little as they can and the personal injury lawyer takes 40-50%.

We need tighter legal standard on what constitutes "cause" for lawsuits and an end to "joint and several" liability where I could be deemed 1% at fault and have to pay 100% of the damages because my tenant has declared bankruptcy.

Contingency lawsuits are actually grounds for disbarment in most countries.

A lawyer gets 33% of a settlement, and 40% of a jury verdict, and in exchange bears all the costs of litigation, including expert witnesses which alone can run upwards of a million dollars in a complex medmal case. If the plaintiff loses, the lawyer eats the loss, and the client pays nothing. Moreover, the 30% comes out of the client's proceeds, the insurance company doesn't pay any "extra" because their unfair denial of the claim forced the victim to hire a lawyer, the victim has the insult of paying for that, not the insurance company.

You're just parroting the B.S. propounded by the insurance companies, that makes it sound as though a lawyer's job is to sit in front of a slot machine all day raking money. That is far from the truth. And again, who would need to hire a lawyer in the first place if the insurance companies just adjusted claims fairly in the first place?

[simms3]

You guys need to stop watching so much FOX News...

First of all I do not watch Fox News.  If I watch the news, it's CNBC, but I typically read the WSJ.  I don't have a beef against Fox though, and it has been proven time and again that Fox viewers are actually the most informed television news audience.

As for my source: Numbers and opinions shaped and taken from "When Good Doctors Get Sued" and the 2003 National Practitioner Databank Report.

Also some more data:  In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practicing defensive medicine, or "[altering] clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability." [33] Of physicians surveyed, 43% reported using digital imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances, which includes costly MRIs and CAT scans.[33] Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious.[33] This practice restriction hits rural areas especially hard, as small towns find themselves without practitioners in high-risk areas such as obstetrics and emergency medicine, or practices without competition as physicians consolidate into single practices to distribute the high costs of malpractice insurance premiums.  Taken straight from Wikipedia.  (Also I have studied John Edward’s legal career enough to know that there is a direct correlation in the decrease in natural births and the increase in C-Sections to his rampage against doctors performing natural births and blaming natural births for cerebral palsy, even though there is no evidence for it).

Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees.  America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses.  Finally, the cost of tort litigation exceeds the growth of GDP by 2-3 points annually, which points to an unnecessary growth in lawsuit (there are 15 million filed in the U.S. per year...do we need THAT many lawsuits?)

I am also not one to get upset at insurance companies.  I have a chronic disease and so does my father, and our insurance has been more than helpful.  I have a warranty for my car, and they have been more than helpful.  I know nobody in my personal life that has had any problems with insurance companies.  And if there was one group of people that I would place the most amount of trust in, it would be doctors.  Every doctor I know is a genuinely decent human being, trustworthy, hard working, and very socially conscious.  If there was one group of people I would not trust, it would be lawyers (and politicians…they are one and the same to me).

That’s where I stand, and that’s where millions of other Americans stand, and we aren’t dumb hicks trying to raise a ruckus.  You assuming that I am a daily Fox News watcher and questioning my data even though I have not assumed anything about you or questioned your data is not a good way to make your point, and sounds more personal than objective.

And thanks Stephen for pointing out the benefits of anonymity.  I know we rarely see eye to eye, but in the many years that I have been following this board (since the early days of metjax.com) I have actually kind of wanted to meet you, but I am never in town anyway.

[stjr]

...All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements.  It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.

....If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do.  Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW)  they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.

Dog, I am with you on this.  Generally, insurance companies aren't spending THEIR money settling claims, they are spending the POLICYHOLDERs' money.  The more claims are paid, the more premiums they demand.  Insurance companies make their money mainly on investment income on cash flow, particularly the time frame between collecting premiums today and paying claims sometime in the future.  They are motivated to increase premiums despite their public statements to the contrary.  The only real motivation to limit claims is (1) a need to keep premiums somewhat in line with like insurance companies they compete with (2) a claim so high that no premium can be charged that will enable them to recover it (3) pressure from the insured on the claim adjusters to the point that they are so scrutinized they behave better under the magnifying glass.

I also find adjusters so jaded that they think every claim should be settled for nuisance value and/or from overstated  fears of losing before a jury (there is risk here, but it can cut both ways, especially in a more frivolous claim) without consideration that by so doing they just encourage claimants and their attorneys to keep filing frivolous claims.

My experience is there is a rise in claims, especially ones like "slip and fall", due to the bad economy.  Both claimants and their attorneys are hungry for someone else's money.  The fact is almost every claim is settled by negotiation and/or mediation and very few get to court.  Most claimants are happy to get reimbursed for some medical bills and a little spending money and their attorneys are happy if they get their hours invested paid for at the equivalent of their billing rates or better.

I believe everyone should have the right to sue and no one should be exempt as negligence, etc. can be found anywhere and much of the "quality", "safety", "reliability" and "fair dealing" in our services and products has been driven by fear of accountability in court.  But the bar should be high enough that the claimant and their attorney pursue only the stronger claims.  Not sure if "loser pays" cures that, but it might help.  The problem with loser pays is matching the resources of the defendant with the plaintiff.  They are often unequal in this regard and the less advantaged player is likely to be unable to "play ball" under these rules.  I am sure there is someone in academia that has studied this and has devised a fairer and better way to manage the process.  Let's see if someone here can make such a suggestion.  In theory, the judges should throw out frivolous cases but they seem to believe everyone should have their day in court which I somewhat understand too.  That's what the courts are there for, after all.

[ChriswUfGator]

You guys need to stop watching so much FOX News...

First of all I do not watch Fox News.  If I watch the news, it's CNBC, but I typically read the WSJ.  I don't have a beef against Fox though, and it has been proven time and again that Fox viewers are actually the most informed television news audience.

As for my source: Numbers and opinions shaped and taken from "When Good Doctors Get Sued" and the 2003 National Practitioner Databank Report.

Also some more data:  In a study published in 2005 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, 93% of physicians surveyed reported practicing defensive medicine, or "[altering] clinical behavior because of the threat of malpractice liability." [33] Of physicians surveyed, 43% reported using digital imaging technology in clinically unnecessary circumstances, which includes costly MRIs and CAT scans.[33] Forty-two percent of respondents reported that they had taken steps to restrict their practice in the previous 3 years, including eliminating procedures prone to complications, such as trauma surgery, and avoiding patients who had complex medical problems or were perceived as litigious.[33] This practice restriction hits rural areas especially hard, as small towns find themselves without practitioners in high-risk areas such as obstetrics and emergency medicine, or practices without competition as physicians consolidate into single practices to distribute the high costs of malpractice insurance premiums.  Taken straight from Wikipedia.  (Also I have studied John Edward’s legal career enough to know that there is a direct correlation in the decrease in natural births and the increase in C-Sections to his rampage against doctors performing natural births and blaming natural births for cerebral palsy, even though there is no evidence for it).

Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees.  America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses.  Finally, the cost of tort litigation exceeds the growth of GDP by 2-3 points annually, which points to an unnecessary growth in lawsuit (there are 15 million filed in the U.S. per year...do we need THAT many lawsuits?)

I am also not one to get upset at insurance companies.  I have a chronic disease and so does my father, and our insurance has been more than helpful.  I have a warranty for my car, and they have been more than helpful.  I know nobody in my personal life that has had any problems with insurance companies.  And if there was one group of people that I would place the most amount of trust in, it would be doctors.  Every doctor I know is a genuinely decent human being, trustworthy, hard working, and very socially conscious.  If there was one group of people I would not trust, it would be lawyers (and politicians…they are one and the same to me).

That’s where I stand, and that’s where millions of other Americans stand, and we aren’t dumb hicks trying to raise a ruckus.  You assuming that I am a daily Fox News watcher and questioning my data even though I have not assumed anything about you or questioned your data is not a good way to make your point, and sounds more personal than objective.

And thanks Stephen for pointing out the benefits of anonymity.  I know we rarely see eye to eye, but in the many years that I have been following this board (since the early days of metjax.com) I have actually kind of wanted to meet you, but I am never in town anyway.

Ok, well, since Rupert Murdoch (a/k/a owner of Fox News) took over the WSJ, it makes Fox look downright liberal.

Secondly, we both know the NPDB publishes those figures annually, so why are you citing to data from 2003? Especially when the modern state of affairs from your very same cited sources looks more like this;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/33649310/NPDB-Report

Also, nobody is calling you a hick, or questioning your intelligence, or anything of the sort. Quite the reverse. My issue with you on this topic is that you're obviously too intelligent not to recognize your own flawed argument, which makes debating this for nothing other than pure intellectual exercise feel a bit tiresome. This isn't your typical internet board, when you're propounding arguments based on ca. 2003 data from sources that we all know are updated annually, it just looks silly here.

Even the 2003 data doesn't really say what you think, since there is no underlying analysis of what the actual rate of proven malpractice is vs. the costs of same. That kind of logic necessarily assumes that 100% of all malpractice claims are frivolous or otherwise deserve no compensation, which is clearly impossible.

You really should check out some non-right-wing scholarly information on this issue. This is great beginning reading;

https://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dlj/downloads/dlj54p447.pdf

Lastly, your logic of "well it's never happened to me, therefore it can't be a problem" is a non sequitur. Lots of terrible things happen to lots of people, but won't happen to you. That's no basis for denying that they happen.

[ChriswUfGator]

...All those ads on TV by personal injury attorneys are paid for by insurance company settlements.  It is cheaper just to pay them off than to fight the lawsuit.

....If the insurance companies would stand up and fight most of these cases, after a while the attorneys would stop, but then the companies couldn't get the high premiums they do.  Until the law changes (which the insurance industry resists BTW)  they will continue to do their profitable dance with the personal injury attorneys.

Dog, I am with you on this.  Generally, insurance companies aren't spending THEIR money settling claims, they are spending the POLICYHOLDERs' money.  The more claims are paid, the more premiums they demand.  Insurance companies make their money mainly on investment income on cash flow, particularly the time frame between collecting premiums today and paying claims sometime in the future.  They are motivated to increase premiums despite their public statements to the contrary.  The only real motivation to limit claims is (1) a need to keep premiums somewhat in line with like insurance companies they compete with (2) a claim so high that no premium can be charged that will enable them to recover it (3) pressure from the insured on the claim adjusters to the point that they are so scrutinized they behave better under the magnifying glass.

I also find adjusters so jaded that they think every claim should be settled for nuisance value and/or from overstated  fears of losing before a jury (there is risk here, but it can cut both ways, especially in a more frivolous claim) without consideration that by so doing they just encourage claimants and their attorneys to keep filing frivolous claims.

My experience is there is a rise in claims, especially ones like "slip and fall", due to the bad economy.  Both claimants and their attorneys are hungry for someone else's money.  The fact is almost every claim is settled by negotiation and/or mediation and very few get to court.  Most claimants are happy to get reimbursed for some medical bills and a little spending money and their attorneys are happy if they get their hours invested paid for at the equivalent of their billing rates or better.

I believe everyone should have the right to sue and no one should be exempt as negligence, etc. can be found anywhere and much of the "quality", "safety", "reliability" and "fair dealing" in our services and products has been driven by fear of accountability in court.  But the bar should be high enough that the claimant and their attorney pursue only the stronger claims.  Not sure if "loser pays" cures that, but it might help.

So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?

Since when?

So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?

After all, it is MINE right?

(What kind of logic is that?)

[ChriswUfGator]

Also, most western nations have "English rule" laws where the loser of a suit must reimburse the other side for legal fees and court fees.  America is not under this "English rule" for the most part, and usually each side covers its own expenses.

Just noticed this bit.

Look up F.S. 57.105, which in fact does impose exactly the penalties you are apparently unaware already exist in FL.

You, dogwalker, and stjr should really do some reading on this issue, from unbiased sources. You're buying into a skewed version here. Litigation costs have virtually nothing to do with the rise in healthcare costs, and the actions of the health insurance industry have almost everything to do with it.

[Timkin]

Stephen, while you do have a lot of outside readers passing through that treat this as a news site, when it comes to the forums I think it's fair to say most of the regular posters on here know each other, know of each other, or at least know who everyone is. Kind of like a big sometimes dysfunctional family.

That sounds pretty accurate

[stjr]

So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?

Since when?

So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?

After all, it is MINE right?

(What kind of logic is that?)

Chris, don't be so literal.  When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer.  And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer.  So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer.  Don't believe me, ask your insurance friends.

It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money.  

[ChriswUfGator]

So if a customer walks into your business and buys something from you, that money is still THEIR money?

Since when?

So you won't mind if I reach into your cash register and take money out?

After all, it is MINE right?

(What kind of logic is that?)

Chris, don't be so literal.  When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer.  And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer.  So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer.  Don't believe me, as your insurance friends.

It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money.  

Well I was being facetious to make a point. Which is, what makes everyone think that, if we eliminate all ability for an injured party to recover damages from anyone, that your insurance premiums would actually go down?

Didn't we already go through this scam with "No Fault" insurance in this state? Last I checked, my auto insurance premiums are still pretty hefty...

Doesn't it seem far more likely that they'll just get what they want and keep the extra profits?

Here's more good reading on this point;

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=mitchell_nathanson

http://www.floridapirg.org/home/reports/report-archives/toxic-free-communities/toxic-free-communities/the-good-hands-company-or-a-leader-in-anti-consumer-practices-excessive-prices-and-poor-claims-practices-at-the-allstate-corporation

http://www.tideroofingtx.com/Documents/BerardinelliExcerpts.pdf

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nw&pname=mm_0907_story1.html

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Domino+strategy%3A+when+Allstate's+claims+adjusters+engage+in+the+...-a075754387

[ChriswUfGator]

Chris, don't be so literal.  When I say its the policyholder's money, I mean it comes out of the policyholder's premiums which do start as MY money before I turn it over to the insurer.  And, as a policyholder, even if I switch insurers, I will be dinged additional premiums, because the new underwriter will base their premium quote on my loss history prior with any previous insurer.  So, there is no escaping that I WILL pay for all my losses, short of those rare instances where they are deemed "shock" claims that exceed stop loss retentions of the primary insurer.  Don't believe me, as your insurance friends.

It's not unlike those who say their is no government money, it's we the taxpayers money.  

Actually, the money collected by insurance companies merely serves as a capitalization pool.

http://ifawebnews.com/2010/08/05/allstates-investments-drag-down-quarterly-numbers/

http://www.statefarm.com/about/companie.asp

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/product-compint-0000232016-page.html

http://www.prudential.com/media/managed/Prudential_Bache_Securities_LLC-Business-Continuition-Plan.pdf

Most of them are only halfway in the business of "insurance".  They are speculators who invest in real estate and securities.  Most of the money they make comes from these investments.  If they paid out claims fairly, then the runaway expenses of medicine and litigation would never be anywhere near what they are now.

I did business with a few doctors in Muncie, and from a couple of different angles.

One of them, a family doctor, could only collect 30% of whatever he billed the insurance company no matter what his prices were or how fairly he charged.  In order to be paid fairly he had to charge one amount as his 'standard fee' and then gave huge 'discounts' when people paid with cash.

Also, while at the law firm, I did my fair share of insurance settlements for personal injuries.  The insurance companies do not pay for the very things they insure.  It was shocking.

You can see this kind of shenanigan happening right now on the Gulf, where BP was out on the beach the day after the platform exploded, paying out a thousand dollars apeice to people to limit their damages.

No, Im afraid I have to agree with Chris here.

The only good guys are the attorneys who fight these bloodsucking monsters.

Even more absurd than their passing their investment losses along to policyholders are their ever-shrinking gross claims ratios, meaning roughly 1/4 to 1/3rd (and growing) of each dollar collected in premiums is retained as pure profit.

So not only do they get to invest their liquidity pool in the meantime, but by fighting claims tooth & nail these people are actually turning insurance into negative protection, e.g. it actually costs more than it's worth. Originally, a claims ratio of 100% wasn't considered awful, now Allstate (one of the worst offenders) has around a 70% ratio and dropping.

But yeah, it's all all the bloodsucking lawyers that cause high premiums, right? It's not the fact that these companies are wrongly denying claims that then forces their insured to retain a lawyer in order to collect what was rightly contractually owed in the first place. Or the fact that they're charging far more in premiums than they ever pay in claims, and then still running around acting like they're broke, in order to increase their profit margins?

I agree with Stephen 100%, these guys just take your money and weasel out of paying anything they can. Then they vilify the only mechanism by which anyone can make them do what they're supposed to do, namely the court system. And the right-wing politicians, being pro-business under all circumstances no matter what (remember that wonderful televised apology to BP?) buy into the whole charade and keep passing legislation that further reduces everyone's rights against unnecessary rate increases and the wrongful denial of claims.

Everyone can keep drinking the koolaid for now, but eventually there will be no right to recovery left to take away, which naturally will result in less caution and care being taken in the running of medical facilities, fewer payments of rightful claims, and the opening of a pandora's box of negligent business practices once nobody has to pay for anything no matter how badly they screwed something up.

Well "to hell with it" you say! You'll just cancel that worthless insurance, since they won't pay anyway, right? WRONG. Thanks to the wonderful insurance lobby, there are myriad statutes which legally require you to purchase insurance coverage to operate many types of businesses, or just to drive your car. So you're stuck.

After all the "reform" in "tort reform" is complete, then imagine how shocked everybody'll be when their insurance premiums are still higher than ever. Because, of course, that was never the real problem to begin with...

The only difference will be that they now have much less incentive to pay your claim...

[ChriswUfGator]

Even more shocking...

http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/07/27/as-insurers-game-the-medical-loss-ratio-key-members-of-congress-weigh-steps-to-fight-back/

So yeah...CLEARLY it's all the "frivolous lawsuits" causing the cost of healthcare to rise, right? NOT.

Sheesh, people! Take a look at some of the actual statistics and data in this whole mess before you run off believing all the B.S. that the insurance lobby and its bought legislators try to feed you. Litgation isn't the problem here, and never was.

Continuing with all this "tort reform" mess is simply going to make your claims less likely to be paid, it's not actually going to lower your rates. The problem to begin with is that these companies continue jacking premiums at a rate that far outpaces their expenses, and far outpaces anything that is rationally necessary.