• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Justices Temporarily Halt Streaming of Prop 8 Trial on YouTube | Main | Ethics Reform Groups Praise White House Efforts »

January 11, 2010


Leo criep

Nursing homes as easy (soft) targets is nothing new in Texas. In the late80's and 90's almost any claim resulted in a significant settlement, in order to protect the carrier against unbelievable verdicts. Part of this was because of a very public attack that Kay Bailey Hutchinson made at that time on the evils of nursing homes. Several of the larger carriers exited the field here in texas. defense of suits was almost impossible.
The plaintiff bar doesn't, and never will, want binding arbitration. Hard to figure out why, isn't it?

Love Arbitration

Arbitration agreements infuriate plaintiffs lawyers because it disables the trial lawyer's ability to 'bully' the defendant. If a plaintiff can bring a claim and has full access to insurance policy limits (generally $1 mil per incident/$3 mil aggregate) it reduces the time to resolve the issue and gets settlement funds to the plaintiff faster. Problem here is, trial lawyers feel they are being squeezed out of what has traditionally been nice work on commission (AKA contingency fee). Bottomline, arbitration will never go away. As a matter of public policy it should not be curtailed by the trial lawyers lobby who are considered to be (by most) the bottom feeders in an otherwise distinguished profession.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad