If it matters, claims history is certainly taken into account nowadays regarding how much the premium should be…
We advise our clients of the potential every time we settle a case…even if just settling for nuisance value…
So why don’t insurance companies just unilaterally limit their liability in the policies they write? Can’t they just state that they will pay a maximum of $250,000 in noneconomic damages? Why do we need more laws to strangle the free enterprise system, and why are conservatives in favor of this??
Sure, costs for care and lost income are covered, the costs for medical care, though, not general care. If one must hire a personal care aide to help them with tasks like dressing, bathing and eating that’s one thing. It’s something else if someone must hire a nanny because they can no longer pick up their baby on their own, a housekeeper because they’re no longer able to use a vacuum or cook a meal or a personal assistant because they can no longer type or take books from a shelf or drive a car.
I’ve never seen (though this is not my area of legal practice, so I’m speaking only of the few cases with which I have personal familiarity) a case in which the ongoing cost of having that type of assistance was allowed as part of the compensatory damages. But then, I also have yet to see many juries which have a great understanding of disability due to pain as opposed to paralysis, loss of function or amputation.
If BBJ or another Doper with some experience in this area of law could clarify how these sorts of ongoing expenses are dealt with in malpractice suits, it’d be illuminating, to say the least.
I suppose that would be legal. However, the form would have to be approved by the State Insurance Dept. They might or might not approve of that sort of coverage restriction. However, malpractice policies do have a limit for the total of economic and non-economic damages.
You have a point. Still, suing people has a different economic impact than other free-enterprise services. Having lots of expensive lawsuits doesn’t make for a wealthy economy. They merely transfer money to one group of people (mostly lawyers) from another group of people (the rest of us.)
So what happens when an award exeeds these limits?**
So, you don’t think trial lawyers perform a valuable service to their clients? Would insurance companies act in the best interest of the claimant without them?
And speaking of contributing to the economy, just exactly how does the insurance industry contribute, besides acting as an intermediary between claimant and insured while taking a healthy cut of every transaction?
Indeed they do perform a valuable service for their clients individually, but paradoxically not for the overall economy. They merely help one set of people get money from another set of people. They don’t add to the overall wealth.
Plaintiff’s attorneys are not the only ones like this. Top tax accountants perform a valuable service for rich individuals, but they’re no creating wealth. By comparison, farmers not only help those who directly buy their food, they help the overall economy by providing enough food for all.
I think liability insurance harms the economy, in a couple of ways. It frustrates what’s supposed to be a fundamental purpose of tort law – punishing the wrongdoer. It also facilitates a tort system that’s inefficient. For that reason, I would support a law prohibiting liability insurance.
I think doctors should just start charging rates based closer to what they are dealing with.
Mechanic: 50-100 bucks and hour, plus parts. Working on a relativly simple device (compaired to the human body). Total replacement, should car be destroyed: 20-30K.
IT: 100-150 an hour plus parts. Ability to backup data (something that can’t be done in medicine). Replacement if computer dies 1-10K.
Doctor: Deals with an irreplaceable device. Requires a greater deal of study in the field, and a device which is probably one of the most complicated on the planet. Sounds to me like Doctors should be charging thousands of dollars per hour.
For centuries, mankind understood that going to the doctor could end up going wrong. In the last few decades, we decided we should get money for it…
Amen, I couldn’t agree more. How popular is that opinion in the insurance industry? Why do they continue to offer such insurance, if it is unprofitable?
Not all of them do continue to offer malpractice coverage. Some have gone bankrupt, like American Mutual and Signal Imperial. Many companies have quit the malpractice business, including two that I worked for – Argonaut and St. Paul. Those who are losing money are hoping to make profits in the future, by raising premium rates or tort reform or superior management.