Yo Evan
Obviously we're on different sides of the well on this one. You evidently have done some plaintiffs' work, and I'm exclusively on the defense side.
You have stated the cause for accessibility to courts, and insurance companies are always going to want to restrict it. We are asked to insure ourselves against lawsuits, but the companies want to have loss controls in place, which means they will try their best to restrict coverage to good risks whenever possible. You really don't expect the two sides to agree, do you? Both sides overstate their case--it's the nature of the beast.
I set forth some of the items in play and being discussed with regard to tort reform in the courts. Other than the caps on damages, which I'm sure you wouldn't agree with, the remainder are procedural and serve everyone's interest, including the plaintiffs' bar that is having to invest in a case. As to "loser pays", while I acknowledge the public interst is served from a court accessibility standpoint--I'm sorry, but there are a good number of cases that are filed that seek nuisance value settlements, and money is paid in settlement because of the current one-sided situation. I'm as biased on my side of that issue as I'm sure the plaintiffs' bar is from its perspective.
That being said, the issues here are a bit different than the med mal cases you speak of, and the employment cases I deal with. While a certain percentage of auto accident cases can be extreme, the vast majority are not--but they do add up.
I do think that insurance oversight is needed--ranging from workers' compensation to malpractice to health and even to automobile insurance, just as tort reform must occur. You are correct to point out that the premiums keep going up despite the programs insurance companies lobby for and get. That should be obvious to anyone.
The discussion here seems to be centered on what we can do, within reason, to deal with the current reality of our cars being considered a high risk. I haven't heard any Ralph Nader--style bull**** yet. I know if I do, I'm not going to be interested in continuing to discuss it. I would love to see our hobby develop its own coverage, but that's likely not going to happen.
Steve
While I can understand you may not want a debate--I really don't think you can bring up a hotbed issue like insurance amongst the different sites (I'll forgive you for your cute remark about Gasholes and Crankoids at the other place--you really don't want our two groups to team up on your ass, do you? Just kidding--we seem to be pretty much in agreement on this.), and not expect folks to want to weigh in with their views. There are many folks that don't hold insurance companies in the highest regard these days. Your industry is pretty well down in the public perception gutter along with our profession and some Turkish car salesmen. If you're trying to build broad-based support, than I would think dealing with opinions that obviously should be expected is going to be something you're going to have to deal with rather than ignore or exclude from discussion. And by the way, thanks for the efforts you are making.
You gentlemen have a nice day...
