For some time, I’ve tossed around an idea to do away with frivolous lawsuits. I’ve had a few good lawyers, but they, like Lincoln, don’t make much money. In fact, people probably liked facing Lincoln because they knew he wouldn’t defend a guilty man, so if he resigned as counsel, that was probably a good sign that the man was guilty.
People often sue because they have much to gain and little to lose. As such, one good deterrent to people like King of the Hill character Lucky would be to impose rules that dictate that the loser pays all court costs. A man bereft of employ or tangible goods would learn very quickly the folly of frivolity in lawsuits if compelled to pay $50000 for which he could not pay.
My main plan for tort reform works on a tit for tat idea. I propose to limit the amount for which you can sue based on the amount of personal liability for which you pay over the immediately previous time period. For example, if you carry $100,000 in personal liability on your house, that would be the maximum damages for which you could sue. The total liability would be the average carried for the immediately proceeding twelve months, preventing people from taking out large policies immediately precedent to the incident and allow insurance companies to flag risky behavior. For instance, if I upped my coverage from $100K to $10 million, it might indicate I intended to sue. My credit card company does this with charge amounts. Stands to reason insurance companies should do in kind.
This would force people who sue to pay, and give them a stake in the game. It would keep people from suing who held no insurance whatsoever and put more money in the pot for legitimate lawsuits or damage claims and strengthen holdings of insurance companies. It’s not a pariah, but it’s better than wanton frivolity.
Get insurance. Take responsibility.
People often sue because they have much to gain and little to lose. As such, one good deterrent to people like King of the Hill character Lucky would be to impose rules that dictate that the loser pays all court costs. A man bereft of employ or tangible goods would learn very quickly the folly of frivolity in lawsuits if compelled to pay $50000 for which he could not pay.
My main plan for tort reform works on a tit for tat idea. I propose to limit the amount for which you can sue based on the amount of personal liability for which you pay over the immediately previous time period. For example, if you carry $100,000 in personal liability on your house, that would be the maximum damages for which you could sue. The total liability would be the average carried for the immediately proceeding twelve months, preventing people from taking out large policies immediately precedent to the incident and allow insurance companies to flag risky behavior. For instance, if I upped my coverage from $100K to $10 million, it might indicate I intended to sue. My credit card company does this with charge amounts. Stands to reason insurance companies should do in kind.
This would force people who sue to pay, and give them a stake in the game. It would keep people from suing who held no insurance whatsoever and put more money in the pot for legitimate lawsuits or damage claims and strengthen holdings of insurance companies. It’s not a pariah, but it’s better than wanton frivolity.
Get insurance. Take responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment