What part of my post didn’t you understand? Like Lynn, i was not defending the amount of the award in this case. I was just suggesting that, whatever the penalty, it should be sufficient to ensure that the company is deterred from continuing the practice. Simple restitution plus interest isn’t sufficient, as all that does is get the company and the woman back to even. The question is how much the punitive damages should be, and what (if any) other punishment the company and its executives should face.
I specifically said, if you’ll read my post, that “$1.6 billion is beyond the realms of sanity.” I also said that we need “a system…that also punishes these companies and the individuals in them adequately for their fraudulent behaviour.” I never said exactly how much i thought would be adequate in this case, and i don’t think that fining the company enough to send it out of business is a very smart thing to do, as all the employees and other policy-holders will also suffer.
That is specifically why i lamented the fact that criminal charges are not brought more often against the individuals involved in this sort of scam. That way, the people responsible could be punished without silly monetary judgments like the one in this case.
I also think that when a case like this is proven, investigators should look more closely into the company to see whether this case in an aberration, or whether it is part of the company’s standard operating procedure. If the former, then restitution and a small financial penalty might suffice; if the latter, then greater redress might be required. And if the company is found to make its living from defrauding people, i think a reasonable argument could be made for sending it out of business altogether.
And, as an aside, i’ve made quite clear in other threads recently that i suuport stiffer penalties for certain driving offences, such as running red lights and drunk driving.
Of course. All juries are nuts. They are filled with Jerry Springer-watching unemployed morons who view jury duty as an exciting break from their mundane little lives.
Sane people get out of jury duty.
(Having said that, if I were called for jury duty, I’d serve … I guess I’m either dumb or have an unshakable sense of civic duty.)
I’m sorry. I missed that line (“beyond the realm of sanity”). My apologies.
While I agree with you that punative damages are warranted (I don’t think she should get just $3000+interest either); I do think that compensatory damages should be limited to that amount. I also think that the punative damages should be linked to that amount as well (there’s no real “pain and suffering” here; there was no bodily injury, no real emotional trauma, etc.) and be somewhere in that ballpart (how does an additional $15K sound? Sounds reasonable to me…)
In any event, I also agree with you that the company needs to clean house and we need to know if this is a one-time problem, a problem with this agent, or a company-wide problem.
and our lucky Powerball number is:
A Jury Verdict.*
It appears to me, more and more, that jury award such as this perpuate the filing of frivolous lawsuits and the system becomes more and more of a lottery. A juror may be thinking: Gosh, when I slip and fall in my local Quickie Mart, I sure hope I get a jury like me. It’s the quick, new way to get rich quick!!
I think the most telling part of the verdict is not necessarily the punitive damages, which itself is unbelievable, but the finding of compensatory damages in the amount of $20 million dollars. $20 fricking million dollars when the woman is out of pocket for $3,000. And the policy itself was valued at $25,000. $20 fucking million dollars? Compensatory damages are to compensate the person for what she lost. She’s out $3,000, could have been out $25,000 if she died. How the fuck did the jury decide on $20 million dollars in compensatory damages? Was the woman out $20 million dollars? No. It’s the frickin’ lottery, that’s what. Absolutely disgusting.
Now, I’m not saying the jagoff who stole her money shouldn’t pay. I’m not saying the idiot company should have done better to supervise him, especially after the prior incident he had.
I’d just point out that we don’t know that the defrauding agent did not get criminally charged as well, and we don’t know that the company knew about or approved of his actions when he was defrauding the woman. IME it’s not accurate to equate large civil jury verdicts with a lack of criminal penalties. It has more to do with wanting to give the plaintiff a lot of money, hit the defendant where it hurts, and not understanding what “a lot of money” really is.
Excuse me, but isn’t it ultimately up to a judge to decide what amout the monetary damages should be? I recall reading about a Philip Morris case in which a jury decided the company should pay $3 billion to a cancer victim but a judge later determined such an amount outrageous.
I have a satellite office in Tuskegee, and work there two or three days per week. The woman who manages the office for me there was a classmate of Carolyn Whittakar in school. For those who wished to know, Whittakar was her maiden name, so she’s probably not married now. She’s a 40-ish black woman, if you really want to follow up on it. Now that she’s soon to be rich, I’d guess you’d better get in line quick!
In the more rural areas it is still common for an insurance agent to sell a policy, then come around and collect the premiums in person each month. This is not the first time that a crooked agent has pocketed the money while letting a person’s policy lapse. (Hint: Do business with a company in such a manner that you mail your payments to the home office, instead of paying the agent in person, and usually in cash.)
In this case, the insurance company claims (probably correctly) that they knew nothing, other than that the policy had lapsed.
I do not know James Perry, the agent who was named in the suit.
To address the insane amount of the verdict: Ya’ kinda’ have to be here… It wouldn’t be at all difficult to select a jury that had no concept of the difference between one hundred thousand, a million and a billion.
As for sane people getting out of jury duty, some famous sum-bitch made a comment about the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing. I’d suggest thinking about that the next time your name is drawn for jury duty.
I wonder if it’s possible that the jury knew that a huge verdict against the company and the agent would be appealed to the end of time, and sought to give Mrs. Hansel… I mean, Ms. Whitaker… a big stick with which to force a quick settlement.
Were I on such a jury, it would certainly cross my mind that any large award we give needs to be balanced against how long it will take the plaintiff to see the money.
It’s always dicey to assume what someone else is thinking, but I think part of it has to do with this is not exactly an affluent area. By such outrageous verdicts, they’re sticking’ it to The Man.
Not generally, no. The amount of damage the plaintiff has incurred (translated into cool crisp dollahs) is a question of fact, and therefore the province of the jury. (Almost always, the judge decides questions of law and the jury decides questions of fact. For one to invade the province of the other is probably reversible error. Except when it’s a judge trial (not jury), of course; then the judge decides both the law and the facts. Because there’s no jury.)
The judge has it within his or her power to reduce awards that are outrageous and clearly bear no relationship to the damages actually incurred in the case. Just like this case. This is because the jury is supposed to be deciding actual damages and proportional punitive damages, and to award sums so totally divorced from the reality of the case amounts to a reversible error of fact.
But judges who reduce jury awards then run the risk their reduction will be reversed on appeal, because it invades the province of the jury – which it does – or because it’s not supported by the evidence because (the plaintiff argues) it’s too little. So judges don’t like to do this, and frequently won’t. But no appellate court is going to chastise a judge for reducing an award of a skillion-kazillion dollars for a small breach of contract claim.
It’s also worth noting that in many states, punitive damages for outrageous conduct are capped by statute, meaning the legislature has decided you can only award punies of X dollars (or X% of the award). So a bazillion dollars in punies is quite likely illegal from the get-go.
Of course…because Alabama is the only state in the country where there is a stupid jury. :rolleyes:
I will try to find a cite for this but word around our office (I’m an insurance broker) is that this particular agent is already involved in another fraud case in another Alabama county for pulling the same kind of stunt.
If the company does this all the time, they should be sued each time they’ve engaged in this same behavior. They should NOT be hammered once, for one infraction, they should be hit over and over again for continuing to do it. This way, every victim can get redress, and the company pays a penalty proportionate to their action.
One quick note: As my lovely wife noted above, the agent in this case already had a judgement against him for engaging in this same criminal behavior in the past. One of the story links in the OP noted that he had an outstanding $5 million judgement on his record. In that case, yeah, I think both he and his company need to be hammered hard.
I agree, and the result will probably be an unfortunate backlash, where juries assume that most lawsuits are frivolous, and may avoid awarding enough damages!
If I slipped and fell and was injured at my local Quickie Mart, and it really was due to some kind of gross negligence by the owner, I would like to be able to bring a lawsuit and have my claims considered fairly–without the jury assuming that I’m just doing it as a get-rich-quick scheme.
Here you’re sneaking up on another issue that these outrageous verdicts raise: Tort reform. “Tort reform” is short-hand for “reforming the rules under which people can recover for torts.” (Generally speaking a “tort” is civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which a party can bring an action for money damages.) The central tenet of tort reform is damage capping: Encouraging legislatures to enact laws that provide that a plaintiff cannot receive damages greater than a certain amount for a certain type of case. When retarded juries award 40 bazillion dollars for no apparent reason, they make tort reform seem like an excellent idea.
In fact, it’s a very controversial idea. It’s easy to say that, in 99 out of 100 cases, no individual should receive more than, say, a million bucks for being unintentionally injured. But what about that 100th plaintiff, who is permanently, totally, and gravely disabled for the rest of his or her life? In theory, the jury should decide the value of damages, not a legislative body that doesn’t even have the facts of the case (any case) in front of it. But when the jury demonstrates that it lacks the intellect or ability to responsibly award damages, it makes of itself an excellent argument that tort damages should be capped, or the jury system abolished altogether.
If I slipped and fell and was injured at my local Quickie Mart, and it really was due to some kind of gross negligence by the owner, I would like to be able to bring a lawsuit and have my claims considered fairly–without the jury assuming that I’m just doing it as a get-rich-quick scheme.
I never suggested they should be “hammered once, for one infraction.” Nor was i talking only about civil suits. If you’ll read my post, you’ll see i was talking also about the possible need for criminal prosecution. If this type of fraudulent behaviour is found to be standard operating procedure for a company, then its directors and executives, and anyone else directly involved, should be prosecuted in a criminal case, and if their convictions result in the closing down of the company i have no problem with it.
I agree that each victim should be compensated proportinately to his or her loss, and should receive punitive damages proportional to the offence. But your post suggests that even a long-term pattern of fraudulent behaviour by a company should incur, proportionally, no greater penalty than a single case of fraud. I’m afraid i can’t agree with that, although i do think that the penalty in the former case should be a criminal one rendered by a judge after a jury verdict, and administered by the government, i.e. jail time.
