Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Actually, that is not what the bill will do. What it does in cases where the liable party has no insurance or not enough to cover your expenses and your own carrier picks up the bill for your meds, you collect your damages before the insurer gets reimbursed and if and only if the carrier recovers would the carrier be liable for a portion of the contingent attorney fees.
In California, that is what uninsured motorists coverage does, so this appears to be a statutory application of that concept.
[ No harm intended to those living in that state, it just seems like that state is a train wreck.
No, it's not a train wreck, so much as a very important demonstration that democracy doesn't necessarily get you what you need, but gets you what you deserve
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Many of California's problems stem from people who want services, but don't want to pay for them.
The law proposed in Colorado is in effect in 36 states, so this idea is not unique to California. The legal fees issue is only one part of the law. It is mainly a subrogation issue.
Insurers don't like the law because it means if you get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, they have to pay your medical expenses under your own policy and they cannot collect from you unless the other side has more coverage than the damages awarded to you. What will happen, most likely is that the insurers will raise their rates to cover the costs.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
Registered: 02/07/07
Posts: 3917
Loc: Ozark Mountains in SW Missouri
Quote:
Insurers don't like the law because it means if you get hit by an uninsured or underinsured motorist, they have to pay your medical expenses under your own policy and they cannot collect from you unless the other side has more coverage than the damages awarded to you.
Whereas here in Missouri I am required to pay for auto liability insurance on each of my vehicles, even though I can only drive one at a time, and if any bozo that chooses to bounce off of me and then run away doesn't get caught, I get to pay for it all.
This seems bass ackward. Instead of requiring me to insure everyone else, why not require me to insure me?
The same problem still exist, but I should have a lower rate if I don't bounce off anyone in my car, or, very few ever bounce off me and those that have a habit or the recurring misfortune of either should pay more.
When the law does not seem to make sense then follow Deep Throat's advice and follow the money.
There has long been liability issues between worker's compensation insurance, health insurance and auto insurance. The difference is that insurance companies rarely enter contingent fee agreements.
It is a question of priorities. The health care provider has already been paid for their services, they are whole. The injured party is my next priority. The insurer that paid the bills is my next priority. Only then should the contingency fee be paid.
Most people believe that tort law should be proportionate responsibility, but it almost always is joint and several liability.
_________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Yogi Berra
FAIR WARNING: As all of you should know, we have a strict policy regarding personal attacks on other members. They will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Also, as many of you know, I am an attorney (it's in my profile, for one thing) and I resent anyone making blanket disparaging remarks about me, based on my profession, especially when the person making them does not know me. Anyone who continues to do so after being warned will be banned from the boards.
PS, Don't bother arguing you have free speech rights here, you don't.
Tom, this strikes me as being a bit heavy-handed. The poster didn't make any remark about you personally, he just said something you didn't like. Would you have issued this warning if the remark had been about politicians? Horse campers? Snowmobilers?
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Yes, Bill, I would have said the same thing. One of the things we try to maintain here is a civil dialogue. People can disagree about things vehemently, but when it veers off into personal attacks, even of a general nature, that is where I draw the line.
If people want to post random attacks on entire groups of people, there are plenty of places on the net to do so. I post on a couple of political sites and call out groups of people all the time, but TLB isn't the place for that in my opinion. That may seem hypocritical, but it is a matter of context.
Lawyers don't get very far calling the other side names, even if they deserve it, and often they do. Your job is to make a legal argument, not argue that the other person is a moron; that's not much of an argument.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
Registered: 10/30/03
Posts: 4963
Loc: Marina del Rey,CA
Food, California has comparative fault, where fault can be apportioned between all the parties, example-one party was speeding, but the other ran the light.
Joint and several liability means fault can be apportioned, but if one defendant can't pay, the others become liable for the entire amount. That is why you see cities or other state agencies named in accident suits (bad road, poor signage, etc.) because they have the money if the other motorist doesn't.
Is this fair? Not really, but the public policy is that the innocent party shouldn't suffer because one of the liable defendants can't pay the damages.
_________________________
Don't get me started, you know how I get.
FAIR WARNING: As all of you should know, we have a strict policy regarding personal attacks on other members. They will not be tolerated under any circumstances. Also, as many of you know, I am an attorney (it's in my profile, for one thing) and I resent anyone making blanket disparaging remarks about me, based on my profession, especially when the person making them does not know me. Anyone who continues to do so after being warned will be banned from the boards.
PS, Don't bother arguing you have free speech rights here, you don't.
Tom, this strikes me as being a bit heavy-handed. The poster didn't make any remark about you personally, he just said something you didn't like. Would you have issued this warning if the remark had been about politicians? Horse campers? Snowmobilers?
I agree, unless agreeing is inappropriate or somehow can be construed as attacking someone, something, or some group. In which case I would like to invoke my right to remain silent.
I am all for the innocent party being made whole. But my definition of innocent is less than 5% at fault, and that includes the family of the injured party.
What I object to is when:
The family of the deceased, who is 60% at fault, Party C is 30% at fault, but broke, and Party D is 10% at fault but is the only one with the capacity to pay.
In many states the family can collect the entire damages from Party D. I do not think that is just. The government likes it because most public assistance is means tested and that keeps the family off the public dole. The lawyers like it because they are on a contingency fee.
I think the law should be: Joint liability does not apply to you unless you are greater than 20% at fault, Joint liability does not apply if the injured party is more than 20% liable, and You are not eligible to collect if the incident occurred during commission of a misdemeanor or more serious crime.
Again - when the law does not produce what most people consider a just result then follow the money to find out why.
Edited by food (04/18/1005:48 PM)
_________________________
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." Yogi Berra
Our long-time Sponsor, BackcountryGear.com - The leading source for ultralite/lightweight outdoor gear:
Affiliate Disclaimer: This forum is an affiliate of BackcountryGear.com, Amazon.com, R.E.I. and others. The product links herein are linked to their sites. If you follow these links to make a purchase, we may get a small commission. This is our only source of support for these forums. Thanks.!