02 Oct 2007
Insurers fight punitive payouts law

I am not a big fan of the whole "punitive damages" concept that has crept into our civil courts over the years, but I may make an exception here, and this is why.

When my former mother-in-law was killing in a auto accident that was clearly the fault of a dump truck driver, the trucking companies insurer refused to pay the claim: they had a $1 million liability policy for causing death. So her spouse hired a lawyer and went to court, and was awarded the claim after a session that lasted less than 5 minutes. However, it took better than a year and a half to get into the local court system, and his lawyer took better than 35% of the award (which was the policy amount). It cost the insurer exactly nothing to prolong this settlement. In fact, they had the use of the settlement money for a year, at interest, for free. It did, however, cost their client, the trucking company, a good deal in attorney fees (as they were obviously sued, too) and reputation, and cost the victim (my former father in law) both time and a large chunk of cash.

This law seems to me to be an incentive for insurers to pay legitimate claims in a timely fashion - an incentive that's lacking in our present system.

Across the country, insurance companies, trial lawyers and legislators are closely watching a November referendum in the state of Washington that could change how insurers are required to treat their customers.

(link) [CNN.com]

07:07 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link

McCain slammed for 'Christian nation' comment

I used to have some small hope (back in 2000) that this guy might actually "get it" - obviously, I was wrong.

Muslim and Jewish groups on Monday sharply criticized Sen. John McCain's comments that he would prefer a Christian president to lead the United States.

(link) [CNN.com]

06:59 /Politics | 2 comments | permanent link

Court looks again at sentencing laws

This kind of attitude has annoyed me for a long time. If judges can't use their discretion to set appropriate sentences, why do we have them? Couldn't they be replaced by a computer program - input the convictions, pop out the punishment?

In a traditional, common law legal system, the judge is the barrier between the accused and the mob. The jury is the barrier between the crown (or the State) and the accused. With the demise of jury nullification we lost the second barrier, and unless the Supremes do something about these "sentencing guidelines", we're going to lose the the first one as well.

The Supreme Court takes up two cases Tuesday that could bring clarity to what has become a murky federal sentencing system.

(link) [Christian Science Monitor]

06:57 /Politics | 0 comments | permanent link