New Orleans Mayor: God Wants City To Be Mostly Black
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
MiamiensisWx
-
Audrey2Katrina
- Category 5
- Posts: 4252
- Age: 75
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:39 pm
- Location: Metaire, La.
VERY well said, BVgal... I've been in favor of tort reform for the longest; but the cronies in power, be they GOP, Dems, or anything in-between, just don't seem willing to let that happen--that said I agree with everything you've said...
And Pearl River: Excellent points as well. I live in Metairie and some 30% of our area went under water, thankfully not nearly as severe as New Orleans got--my neighborhood had water ranging from 18 inches to 3 feet in houses, and while it gets on one's nerves the way folks would think that N.O. was the only story, anyone well informed KNOWS better. Mississippi's Gulf Coast looks like a bomb blast along MILES of coastland areas, (As does the Ninth Ward, Chalmette, and other areas here in SE La.--saw pics from Slidell as well--major calamity!) but to punish the people and businesses of New Orleans for the Media's obsession IMHO is just plain aiming at the wrong targets. We are already trying to recall our parish president, and I think Nagin's days are numbered as well--albeit nothing is definite in this area.
A2K
And Pearl River: Excellent points as well. I live in Metairie and some 30% of our area went under water, thankfully not nearly as severe as New Orleans got--my neighborhood had water ranging from 18 inches to 3 feet in houses, and while it gets on one's nerves the way folks would think that N.O. was the only story, anyone well informed KNOWS better. Mississippi's Gulf Coast looks like a bomb blast along MILES of coastland areas, (As does the Ninth Ward, Chalmette, and other areas here in SE La.--saw pics from Slidell as well--major calamity!) but to punish the people and businesses of New Orleans for the Media's obsession IMHO is just plain aiming at the wrong targets. We are already trying to recall our parish president, and I think Nagin's days are numbered as well--albeit nothing is definite in this area.
A2K
0 likes
-
MiamiensisWx
bvigal wrote:You know what's really beginning to worry me? It looks like the aftermath of last year's storms will be judged in courtrooms, setting precident for how emergency response is planned and carried out in future, which will make things even more screwed up! If the U.S. doesn't pass some tort reform soon, the whole country is going down the tubes.
We plan response to medical emergencies on 'worst-case' scenario, which is "what if they are Americans?" (translation: if they are, they will surely SUE US!) World-wide, Americans are the laughing stock of every discussion about bad things happening, because they refuse to accept it, insisting upon blaming someone else and making them pay via the court system.
Believe me, if you think it was bad when Nagin was trying to figure out the ramifications of mandatory evacs, based upon the LATEST legal precident (translation: forget planning, the picture changes every day!), wait till you see what gets built in to plans for ALL areas in US this year! Response time and protocol to save lives will put more people at risk to satisfy officials they are incurring the least LEGAL RISK.
Shame on America! Write your U.S. Congressmen and Senatorsand tell them to pass tort reform, or else NEVER vote for another attorney for political office!!!
You must have had jury duty recently and not been paid your 6 dollars.....
Tort reform is the answer for Americans? For the life of me, I cannot see how tort reform and response times of emergency personnel are related. I don't think there is a lot of NY's suing the NYFD after 911. I have heard this same banter over and over again for the last decade and still to this day the American legal system works.
Personally being an American, I find your post offensive in nature. Not only to Americans but to lawyers everywhere. I am going to write my royal family.....
0 likes
-
bvigal
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 2276
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 8:49 am
- Location: British Virgin Islands
- Contact:
Rock, I am an American. You are kidding, right? If not, I'm truly sorry you are offended. But I am only stating the truth of what the rest of the world thinks about us. Try living overseas, it's a real education.
As to not understanding why people talk about need for tort reform... well, isn't it blaringly obvious? OK, here's some stuff as to why
Many have mentioned the delay in New Orleans and other municipalities while officials tried to get a clear picture of 'mandatory evacuation' legality. Why do you think they cared? Want to listen in to the conference? "Well, if we do a mandatory, and someone..." blah, blah, blah "then we are opening ourselves up to massive litigation". If you think these conversations don't take place, and won't take place 100 times more often now, you are kidding yourself. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, every single thing they do must be examined against liability. Reams of new protocols will be written by masses of staff attorneys now for every responder org and government agency, adding layers and layers of precautionary proceedures, in an attempt to prevent skyrocketing liability insurance premiums. I really am worried about how response will be handled in future. I've seen these layers grow every year in 1st responder organizations, they are caused by LITIGATION LIABILITY.
As to what it costs every one, every day, here's a simple illustration from where I used to work. We made 27 products. We put a set of information on the labels, saying "don't do this with it". When somebody would buy it and then do what they were warned not to do (unrelated to it's intended purpose - some people actually make their living this way!) and would threaten to sue us, our product liability insurance company would make us pay the claimant if they wanted any amount less than $8,000 claim, even though it was the consumer's own fault, because it was cheaper than going to litigation. Anything over that amount, our insurance company would go to court to defend us.
A year later, the insurance company told us to pay all claims up to $20,000, in another year, they told us to pay all claims up to $80,000. Meanwhile, our premiums tripled. NO, zilch, nadda, none lawsuits were ever settled against our company during this time. Guess where the extra costs to our company went? To the price tag you pay for it. AND, it's true for EVERY SINGLE THING YOU BUY, goods and services, believe me!
from http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm
The legal system in the United States has been widely criticized for being too costly, inefficient and ineffective in administering fair awards. In particular, the contemporary tort[1] system in the U.S. has deteriorated because of perverse incentives that lead to skyrocketing costs. Because of our current third party insurance system, and its pain and suffering damage recoveries that sustain contingency fee litigation, perverse incentives and standards have developed that drive up the cost of the tort system. In the auto insurance field, these incentives have produced a system riddled with fraud and abuse, and along with the tort system as a whole, they have generated costly, unnecessary and fraudulent medical claims. All of these problems add up to a huge economic burden for individuals, businesses, and government. According to a recent study by the actuarial firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, 1994 tort costs are up 125 percent from the 1984 level.
The economic consequences of such heavy tort costs are considerable. First, individuals suffer directly by having less disposable income than they would otherwise due to higher premiums for automobile and other forms of insurance. Second, individuals suffer indirectly when businesses, forced to pay higher premiums for product liability and other forms of insurance, raise their prices on goods and services. Third, when businesses have to charge higher prices, they do less business than they would otherwise, which in turn slows down job expansion and economic growth. Individuals bear the brunt of this economic slowdown in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs. Finally, increasing litigiousness discourages businesses and individuals from taking risks, which means that fewer new products are brought to market and new technologies are either delayed or forgone altogether.[2]
Individuals living and working in urban areas are particularly affected by the high costs of the tort system, because cities and other densely-populated areas have experienced an even greater increase in the tort costs. In New York City, for instance, municipal litigation costs increased 187 percent between 1984 and 1994, and such costs are increasing at a 12 percent annual rate thus far in the 1990s.[3] In addition, municipal residents pay relatively more in auto insurance and other tort-related costs, thereby adding to the economic burdens of urban residents. In the current environment of fiscal responsibility and taxpayer flight from cities, urban governments and residents can ill-afford to allocate large portions of their budgets to litigation costs.
One of the driving forces behind tort costs is insurance fraud and exaggeration. To gauge the extent to which claims of outright fraud are responsible for rapid increases in health and auto insurance premiums, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an investigation of staged automobile accidents. The results of this inquiry led FBI Director Louis Freeh to estimate that "[e]very American household is burdened with more than $200 annually in additional insurance premiums to make up for this type of fraud."[4]
A prime example of the burden of numerous and expensive tort cases is the automobile insurance industry. Everyone who owns a car probably has some experience with outrageous premiums for car insurance, but low-income drivers especially suffer because they have much less disposable income (a point discussed in greater detail below). Industry data indicate that the cost of bodily injury premiums increased 150 percent in the 1980s, and premiums for bodily injury coverage in 1990 were 2.5 times the level in 1980.[5] Moreover, this increase has occurred as cars have become safer and the number of automobile accidents has sharply declined.[6] A large part of the cost for automobile insurance goes to pay for tort cases. Insurance carriers simply take their tort costs, and apportion some amount to each premium. This way, everyone who insures a car pays for tort costs and system-induced fraud. Thus, as tort costs continue to skyrocket, all drivers pay the price through higher automobile insurance premiums.
from http://www2.gsu.edu/~rmipzb/3yearupdate.htm
The flood of litigation is occurring despite the work of the federal Victim Compensation Fund, which Congress established not only to help those directly harmed by the Sept. 11 plane crashes, but also to protect the airlines from lawsuits. Victims and their families who applied for payments from the fund are barred from suing in most cases, except for suits against those who were knowingly involved in the hijackings.
Most of the families of the dead - almost 2,900 - chose to apply to the fund rather than to risk a lawsuit. But a number chose to sue the airlines, airports, security firms and plane manufacturers.
"At one point, there were 350 lawsuits pending," said Desmond T. Barry Jr., a partner at Condon & Forsyth, who is the coordinator for the defense lawyers in those cases, which have been consolidated in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
Now there are about 86 wrongful death and personal injury cases outstanding, most of them brought by the families of passengers on the four hijacked planes, he said, and about 14 suits over property damage.
The families that chose to proceed in the courts did so in many cases because they were "so angry at the security failures and want answers, as distinguished from wanting recovery," said Marc S. Moller, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler who is liaison for the plaintiffs' lawyers.
Many of the rescue and recovery workers also ended up being covered by the Victim Compensation Fund, an outcome that slashed the number of lawsuits against New York City, said Kenneth A. Becker, a lawyer in the office of the city corporation counsel. About 1,700 plaintiffs originally sued the city, he said, and all but about 100 of those cases have been withdrawn.
But there is still almost no end to the lawsuits out there, making their slow, sometimes agonizing ways toward resolution. Perhaps.
In addition to the sanitation workers, a number of construction workers who were injured during the cleanup and reconstruction at ground zero have also sued. Those cases, in New York State Supreme Court, are "moving like glue," said David W. Tolchin, who represents one of the injured workers.
Then there is the lawsuit filed by the families of firefighters against the city and Motorola over the radios that were plagued with problems at the site of the disaster. The federal judge handling many of the Sept. 11 cases, Alvin K. Hellerstein, dismissed that case in March, ruling that the families could not sue because they had applied to the Victim Compensation Fund; that decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A different federal judge, Richard Conway Casey, is hearing the lawsuits that have been filed against charities, banks and Saudi officials accused of financing the terrorists. These cases involved thousands of plaintiffs, about 75 defendants, dozens of law firms. And that was before Cantor Fitzgerald filed its lawsuit last week. It is asking for billions of dollars in damages. Next week, the judge will hold a hearing on whether to dismiss the suits against some defendants who claim to have sovereign immunity.
Many other smaller disputes involve insurance, and are also working their way through the system; for example, the Fresco Tortilla place on Fulton Street went to court after its $12,000 claim was rejected by its insurance company, which settled late last month, according to the restaurant's pro bono lawyers from Debevoise & Plimpton.
One area that may soon grow involves disputes over legal fees. Some victims say they were misled by lawyers they thought were free but who tried to charge them as much as 25 percent of the money they received from the compensation fund.
As to not understanding why people talk about need for tort reform... well, isn't it blaringly obvious? OK, here's some stuff as to why
Many have mentioned the delay in New Orleans and other municipalities while officials tried to get a clear picture of 'mandatory evacuation' legality. Why do you think they cared? Want to listen in to the conference? "Well, if we do a mandatory, and someone..." blah, blah, blah "then we are opening ourselves up to massive litigation". If you think these conversations don't take place, and won't take place 100 times more often now, you are kidding yourself. And that's just the tip of the iceberg, every single thing they do must be examined against liability. Reams of new protocols will be written by masses of staff attorneys now for every responder org and government agency, adding layers and layers of precautionary proceedures, in an attempt to prevent skyrocketing liability insurance premiums. I really am worried about how response will be handled in future. I've seen these layers grow every year in 1st responder organizations, they are caused by LITIGATION LIABILITY.
As to what it costs every one, every day, here's a simple illustration from where I used to work. We made 27 products. We put a set of information on the labels, saying "don't do this with it". When somebody would buy it and then do what they were warned not to do (unrelated to it's intended purpose - some people actually make their living this way!) and would threaten to sue us, our product liability insurance company would make us pay the claimant if they wanted any amount less than $8,000 claim, even though it was the consumer's own fault, because it was cheaper than going to litigation. Anything over that amount, our insurance company would go to court to defend us.
A year later, the insurance company told us to pay all claims up to $20,000, in another year, they told us to pay all claims up to $80,000. Meanwhile, our premiums tripled. NO, zilch, nadda, none lawsuits were ever settled against our company during this time. Guess where the extra costs to our company went? To the price tag you pay for it. AND, it's true for EVERY SINGLE THING YOU BUY, goods and services, believe me!
from http://www.house.gov/jec/tort/tort/tort.htm
The legal system in the United States has been widely criticized for being too costly, inefficient and ineffective in administering fair awards. In particular, the contemporary tort[1] system in the U.S. has deteriorated because of perverse incentives that lead to skyrocketing costs. Because of our current third party insurance system, and its pain and suffering damage recoveries that sustain contingency fee litigation, perverse incentives and standards have developed that drive up the cost of the tort system. In the auto insurance field, these incentives have produced a system riddled with fraud and abuse, and along with the tort system as a whole, they have generated costly, unnecessary and fraudulent medical claims. All of these problems add up to a huge economic burden for individuals, businesses, and government. According to a recent study by the actuarial firm Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, 1994 tort costs are up 125 percent from the 1984 level.
The economic consequences of such heavy tort costs are considerable. First, individuals suffer directly by having less disposable income than they would otherwise due to higher premiums for automobile and other forms of insurance. Second, individuals suffer indirectly when businesses, forced to pay higher premiums for product liability and other forms of insurance, raise their prices on goods and services. Third, when businesses have to charge higher prices, they do less business than they would otherwise, which in turn slows down job expansion and economic growth. Individuals bear the brunt of this economic slowdown in the form of lower wages and fewer jobs. Finally, increasing litigiousness discourages businesses and individuals from taking risks, which means that fewer new products are brought to market and new technologies are either delayed or forgone altogether.[2]
Individuals living and working in urban areas are particularly affected by the high costs of the tort system, because cities and other densely-populated areas have experienced an even greater increase in the tort costs. In New York City, for instance, municipal litigation costs increased 187 percent between 1984 and 1994, and such costs are increasing at a 12 percent annual rate thus far in the 1990s.[3] In addition, municipal residents pay relatively more in auto insurance and other tort-related costs, thereby adding to the economic burdens of urban residents. In the current environment of fiscal responsibility and taxpayer flight from cities, urban governments and residents can ill-afford to allocate large portions of their budgets to litigation costs.
One of the driving forces behind tort costs is insurance fraud and exaggeration. To gauge the extent to which claims of outright fraud are responsible for rapid increases in health and auto insurance premiums, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began an investigation of staged automobile accidents. The results of this inquiry led FBI Director Louis Freeh to estimate that "[e]very American household is burdened with more than $200 annually in additional insurance premiums to make up for this type of fraud."[4]
A prime example of the burden of numerous and expensive tort cases is the automobile insurance industry. Everyone who owns a car probably has some experience with outrageous premiums for car insurance, but low-income drivers especially suffer because they have much less disposable income (a point discussed in greater detail below). Industry data indicate that the cost of bodily injury premiums increased 150 percent in the 1980s, and premiums for bodily injury coverage in 1990 were 2.5 times the level in 1980.[5] Moreover, this increase has occurred as cars have become safer and the number of automobile accidents has sharply declined.[6] A large part of the cost for automobile insurance goes to pay for tort cases. Insurance carriers simply take their tort costs, and apportion some amount to each premium. This way, everyone who insures a car pays for tort costs and system-induced fraud. Thus, as tort costs continue to skyrocket, all drivers pay the price through higher automobile insurance premiums.
from http://www2.gsu.edu/~rmipzb/3yearupdate.htm
The flood of litigation is occurring despite the work of the federal Victim Compensation Fund, which Congress established not only to help those directly harmed by the Sept. 11 plane crashes, but also to protect the airlines from lawsuits. Victims and their families who applied for payments from the fund are barred from suing in most cases, except for suits against those who were knowingly involved in the hijackings.
Most of the families of the dead - almost 2,900 - chose to apply to the fund rather than to risk a lawsuit. But a number chose to sue the airlines, airports, security firms and plane manufacturers.
"At one point, there were 350 lawsuits pending," said Desmond T. Barry Jr., a partner at Condon & Forsyth, who is the coordinator for the defense lawyers in those cases, which have been consolidated in Federal District Court in Manhattan.
Now there are about 86 wrongful death and personal injury cases outstanding, most of them brought by the families of passengers on the four hijacked planes, he said, and about 14 suits over property damage.
The families that chose to proceed in the courts did so in many cases because they were "so angry at the security failures and want answers, as distinguished from wanting recovery," said Marc S. Moller, a partner at Kreindler & Kreindler who is liaison for the plaintiffs' lawyers.
Many of the rescue and recovery workers also ended up being covered by the Victim Compensation Fund, an outcome that slashed the number of lawsuits against New York City, said Kenneth A. Becker, a lawyer in the office of the city corporation counsel. About 1,700 plaintiffs originally sued the city, he said, and all but about 100 of those cases have been withdrawn.
But there is still almost no end to the lawsuits out there, making their slow, sometimes agonizing ways toward resolution. Perhaps.
In addition to the sanitation workers, a number of construction workers who were injured during the cleanup and reconstruction at ground zero have also sued. Those cases, in New York State Supreme Court, are "moving like glue," said David W. Tolchin, who represents one of the injured workers.
Then there is the lawsuit filed by the families of firefighters against the city and Motorola over the radios that were plagued with problems at the site of the disaster. The federal judge handling many of the Sept. 11 cases, Alvin K. Hellerstein, dismissed that case in March, ruling that the families could not sue because they had applied to the Victim Compensation Fund; that decision has been appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
A different federal judge, Richard Conway Casey, is hearing the lawsuits that have been filed against charities, banks and Saudi officials accused of financing the terrorists. These cases involved thousands of plaintiffs, about 75 defendants, dozens of law firms. And that was before Cantor Fitzgerald filed its lawsuit last week. It is asking for billions of dollars in damages. Next week, the judge will hold a hearing on whether to dismiss the suits against some defendants who claim to have sovereign immunity.
Many other smaller disputes involve insurance, and are also working their way through the system; for example, the Fresco Tortilla place on Fulton Street went to court after its $12,000 claim was rejected by its insurance company, which settled late last month, according to the restaurant's pro bono lawyers from Debevoise & Plimpton.
One area that may soon grow involves disputes over legal fees. Some victims say they were misled by lawyers they thought were free but who tried to charge them as much as 25 percent of the money they received from the compensation fund.
0 likes
I feel bad that your insurance company didn't have the resources to counter the alleged consumer claims against you. Ever try changing insurance carriers? Being in that line of business you are "assuming the risk" of consumer claims. You know it will happen but you still make products in hopes your profits will outweigh the premiums. That is why you have insurance. Checks and balances. God knows I have see my share of unfair litigation, frivilous law suits but the bottom line is it's part of America and it works. If I took the time to do some research, Im sure I could find numerous opinions in favor of our legal system the way it is.
You want to harp on something and want us to call / write our congressman? How about healthcare reform? Now thats something to get riled up about....
You want to harp on something and want us to call / write our congressman? How about healthcare reform? Now thats something to get riled up about....
0 likes
Return to “Hurricane Recovery and Aftermath”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests