Reform Warrior Ted Frank has a post up, about a case out of Missouri. He uses it as parable about plaintiff’s lawyer’s dirty tactics and greed. But there is something missing.
Wayne Davis, Jr., had a .203 blood-alcohol level, when he drove his pickup across the center line of a Camden County, Missouri, highway on March 24, 2000, and crashed head on into the compact car of Edward and Virginia Johnson.
You’ll be happy to hear that the Johnsons didn’t try to blame the beer company or the auto manufacturer, and simply sued Davis. Davis’s insurer, Allstate, contacted the Johnsons’ attorney, David Sexton, in April, and asked for access to the Johnsons’ medical record. Sexton responded by demanding the policy limits. Allstate requested the medical records three more times, and finally got the records on December 20. Allstate immediately agreed to pay the settlement limits, but now Sexton refused, saying his April offer had expired, and he now wanted $3 million from Allstate.
Ted implies in the text, and flat out states in the comments that he feels Allstate did nothing wrong. But when you read the opinion, a few additional facts pop up. Allstate acknowledge that the offer has expired in June. A number of insurance experts testified that at the point that Sexton sent his demand letter, Allstate had enough information to determine liability. In fact, at that point, they had been informed that Davis was drunk and the opinion makes it seem that Allstate had, at that point, already determined that the accident was entirely the fault of Davis. Moreover, the Allstate manual does not require medical records be provided to make a decision, so it wasn’t like Allstate was just adhering to set policy.
Based on this, the jury felt, and the appeals court found sufficient evidence to agree, that Allstate had acted in bad faith by stalling. That would seem to support the jury verdict, large as it may be. Allstate could have avoided all of this by agreeing to pay the policy limits, which, incidentally, were quite below the actual expenses. By delaying they exposed their insured, and themselves, to vastly increased damages. Not calling attention to this, finessing the facts to make it appear that Allstate was just acting reasonably while the plaintiff’s attorney schemed to get more money, serves no purpose except to attempt to serve a partisan agenda of attacking the civil justice system.
That being said, none of this excuses what appears to be collusion between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The fact that Davis, the drunk driver, has the potential to come out ahead on this deal is disgusting. That is a tragedy beyond words, and it strains my carefully maintained blog-profanity-filter. So at least we can agree that there is something wrong here.
UPDATE: Ted Frank responds, briefly, in the comments at Overlawyered. Rather funnily, he leaves out about two thirds of the points I make.
Posted in
Law Tags:
Hypocrisy,
Tort Reform
John Scalzi, who writes like angels are channeling Heinlein to his fingertips (hyperbole, I like him, leave it at that) has a post about some goings on with the movement to limit marriage in California, undoing the recent historic decision that allowed same sex couples to marry. Specifically, the proponents of this wingnuttery are upset that that when the initiative appears on the ballot, the summary will include the line:
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry.
It appears that these crusaders feel that it is wrong to describe an effort to make an existent right disappear as “elimination.”
Now, to be fair, there is some clearly biased language in the summary. Namely, the part about tax revenue:
This measure could result in revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, to state and local governments. Over the next few years, this loss could potentially total in the several tens of millions of dollars.
That is just rank speculation, and probably doesn’t belong.
But that doesn’t detract from the fact that these fine folks seem to feel that they can’t muster enough support for their initiative when it is explained using plain language. I’m sure they’d like it to be called the “Amendment to Make California more Holy.”
Posted in
Ramblings Tags:
Hypocrisy,
Politcs
Seems that the city of St. Louis, like many cities, allows the police to confiscate the cars of people suspected (but not necessarily convicted) of certain crimes. They have a contract with a city towing firm, and said firm was allowing police officers and their families to “rent” confiscated cars free of charge, sometimes for months on end. Officers and their families could also sometimes purchase the confiscated cars at a fraction of the cars’ value.
Via Reason.
I’m sure this doesn’t create any kind of conflict of interest.
Posted in
Misc. Tags:
Hypocrisy
I’m uncomfortable with mandatory binding arbitration as well as choice of law statutes, but this just takes the cake. Blackwater is trying to get a wrongful death claim tried under Sharia law, and I’m sure this is just a coincidence:
If the judge agrees, it would essentially end the lawsuit over a botched flight supporting the U.S. military. Shari’a law does not hold a company responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their work.
via BoingBoing.
Posted in
Law Tags:
Hypocrisy,
Law,
War on Terror
. . . arguing that extending the statute of limitations in some cases is wrong, whereas granting retroactive immunity is just great. But that’s just what the American Enterprise Institute is advocating, that Congress should only retroactively meddle when they are protecting those who assist the government. It should come as no surprise that the extended statute of limitations would help out harmed individuals, whereas retroactive immunity would help out corporations that broke the law.
I have no opinion with regards to extending statutes of limitations, the tension between the needs of harmed individuals and the rule of law is not something that I can do away with easily. But the FISA controversy is another matter entirely.
The AEI says the issue is all about expectations, and sums the situation up in a quote from some former intelligence officials:
For hundreds of years our legal system has operated under the premise that, in a public emergency, we want private citizens to respond to the government’s call for help unless the citizen knows for sure that the government is acting illegally. If Congress does not act now, it would be basically saying that private citizens should only help when they are absolutely certain that all the government’s actions are legal.
That is exactly what Congress should be saying. It should be saying that the law is the responsibility of every American, and the government’s request for action does not excuse people from that responsibility. “If the president orders it, it’s not illegal” should not be the mantra of the whole of America.
Posted in
Law,
Ramblings Tags:
FISA,
Hypocrisy
