BEWARE
OF TORT REFORM!
Don’t be misled by claims that insurance premiums will be
reduced by “Tort Reform” seeking to limit the amount
of damages payable to victims or their estates for wrongful death
or injury. In many cases, so called “Tort Reform” is
simply another name for “no fault”: A system like WCB
where any entitlement is determined by a government board of adjusters
without benefit of counsel.
The truth is that Tort Reform is fueled by the insurance industry’s
primary quest to maximize profits. Substantive U.S. studies and
data conclusively prove that suppressing damages and crippling attorneys
fees in medical malpractice matters have not resulted in any reduction
of malpractice premiums.
Beware particularly of the “big lie” technique of some
insurers. Outlandish examples are invented as to claims which are
purported to have achieved huge damage awards on the basis of unreal
facts. Such insurers know that if told only once such stories would
not be believed. However, if you repeat the story often enough,
especially in the media, it no longer requires proof as the very
fact of repeated publication as an item of news means it “must”
be true.
The following is an excerpt from the research of E. Lee Schlender
J.D. as published in the January 2003 edition of WSTLA Trial News.
| “A recent Harvard University Study
[Paul Willier et al – A Measure of Malpractice (Harvard
1993)] found the number of malpractice claims asserted is short
of reaching the actual level of negligently inflicted injuries
with approximately 1 in 8 potential claims ripening into a lawsuit
and therefore providing evidence that rather than there being
too many cases, there is in fact underlitigation of malpractice
claims. A 1999 report entitled “Premium Deceit-The Failure
of Tort Reform To Cut Insurance Prices,” by the Center
For Justice and Democracy in Washington (www.centerjd.ord) studied
the impact of “Tort Reform” on nationwide insurance
costs between 1985 and 1999. It concluded that tort reform has
not lowered insurance rates in the ensuing years; states with
little or no tort reform experienced essentially the same changes
in insurance rates as those states which had enacted severe
restrictions on victim’s rights. Similarly, in a March
13, 2002, press release the American Insurance Association (AIA),
the leading insurance industry trade group, advised lawmakers
who enact tort reform “not to expect insurance rates to
drop.” In its press release, the AIA stated that “the
industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific
premium savings.” As stated by the Director of the Center
For Justice and Democracy, Joanne Doroshow, “we would
like to thank the insurance industry for finally admitting what
is already obvious; that they have not cut, and have no plans
to cut, insurance premiums for doctors, hospitals or other businesses
as a consequence of ‘tort reform’.” In the
July 19, 1999, issue of Liability Week, the President of the
American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) stated: “We wouldn’t
tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would
be to reduce insurance rates.” ATRA’s general counsel,
Victor Schwartz, told the journal of Business Insurance (July
19, 1999) that “many tort reform advocates do not contend
that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates and I
have never said that in 30 years.” Capping malpractice
awards does not lower premiums; in California, which enacted
medical malpractice tort reform in 1974, malpractice premiums
are 19 percent higher than the nationwide average.” |
[Go Back To The Cases]
|
