Actually Jamo's post is ridiculous as is his position. More hot air.
If you want a system that grants attorney's fees and costs to winner, thats fine. Write to your congressmen. But be careful what you ask for. You may get it.
We actually do some defense work also not just plaintiff's work. If you believe everything the insurance industry is telling you I can only laugh.
Big business and the insurance industry would LOVE nothing more then a loser pays system. Who do you think is really behind this idea? Since big business and the insurance industry are always looking out for the "little guy" you guys should jump on the band wagon immediately. Hell, you can trust them.
Think about it before you jump into loser pays camp. Once you think it through you may understand its not the magic pill the insurance industry and big business say it is...at least not for you, them maybe, but not you.
Let Jamo explain to you guys the fact that many lawsuits have meritorious positions on both sides. "Meritorious" doesn't alway equate to victory. Next time one of you guys gets into an accident for example where liability is contested and you of course feel "you are in the right", and you have serious injuries or damages, voluteer to remove your case to a loser pays venue. Put your money where your mouth is. After all, you can always retain, Jamo, as he will rub the corksucking opposition attorney in the dirt for you.
Friviloius action statutes and Fed Rule 11 are designed to address aggregious abuses. Its not designed to punish weak cases or cases that lose.
As to the McDonalds coffee case, the initial verdict was reduced by the judge on a remittitur (let Jamo explain it to since he is the official CC legal begal) which is another safeguard against runaway verdicts. Moreover the reduce award was fair and just for numerous reasons. Maybe our asteemed defense attorney would like to fill you in on all the facts underlying the verdict and the two different natures of the award (compensatory and punitive). There more most don't know about that case then they do know but the insurance industry doesn't want you to know. This is their banner case they use to push tort reform each and everytime they try it claiming they are poor. The insurance indsutry really needs a break. They are really suffering financially.
Oh, and the contingincy fee is designed to help the downtrodden who otherwise would not have the money to maintain a meritourious cause of action agaist the poor little insurance company or "victimized" big business.
Hey, what do I know, you guys follow Jamo on this into the light!
Hybrid Mode
