What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Perry says SUCK IT! to legal victims

Vanquish

Vanquisher of shills
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
358
Points
98
http://southfield.injuryboard.com/m...us-constitutional-rights.aspx?googleid=290694

“Loser pays” may sound like a reasonable concept, but losing a case does not mean the plaintiff brought a frivolous lawsuit. The “loser pays” philosophy mistakenly assumes otherwise. Litigation costs by a corporate defendant must be matched by the plaintiff.

A corporate defendant can easily afford “loser pays”; a system heavily biased against the average citizen. Big businesses often have insurers to finance their litigation expenses; they can simply outspend a plaintiff, eventually forcing an early, low-ball, settlement. If the plaintiff is able to stay the course through financial assistance from lawsuit funding or other means, he/she can still lose.

And, Texas “loser pays” goes off the injustice charts like no other “loser pays” legislation ever has. You see, most loser pays legislation tries to appear reasonable or fair by applying to both side of the litigation. In most cases, even though the vast economic disparity between plaintiffs and defendants always make “loser pays” legislation unfair, at least legislators cover their elective butts and seek to apply it to both plaintiffs and defendants. But not Rick Perry; not Texas legislators! Their pro-business, anti-citizen slant is so blatant, that they don’t even attempt to create the appearance of citizen fairness.

How, you ask? Because in Texas, “loser pays” only applies to the plaintiff in a lawsuit. That’s right; you read it correctly. What “loser pays” really means is that the insurance company who denies a claim or makes a low-ball offer will NEVER PAY litigation costs regardless of their negligence on deliberate wrong-doing. It permits them to recover litigation costs in all lawsuits by allowing recovery against winning or losing plaintiffs. If the corporate defendant puts forth a frivolous defense; if it ties up fair resolution for years with frivolous appeals and then loses, even if it misbehaves in its claims handling process, it doesn’t have to pay a cent of the plaintiff’s costs and fees! “Loser pays” will block any chance for Texans to go to court and seek fair compensation, but does not apply, at all, to corporate defendants; does that sound fair to you?
 

Douger

Rookie
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
12,321
Reaction score
936
Points
0
Location
Not fucking there !
Enjoy.................................................
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
59,579
Reaction score
22,176
Points
2,260
Location
Western Va.
Ever consder that the "plaintiffs" are often backed by a network of ambulance chasing litigating corporations or a tax exempt network of social issue left wingers? Why shouldn't they have to pay for frivolous lawsuits?
 

Nosmo King

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2009
Messages
26,381
Reaction score
7,269
Points
290
Location
Buckle of the Rust Belt
So, let's review. Lawsuits against corporations are harder to win, and even harder to pay for. Unions are thugs and should be driven from the workplace. Government regulations are intrusive and must be eliminated. Lawsuits against corporations are regarded as 'frivolous'. Workers must just get used to lower wages and a lower standard of living if we're going to be competitive against third world nations. The EPA must be eliminated because their regulations kill profits.

All this in the name of freedom and liberty.

Conservatives: thanks for nothing!
 
OP
Vanquish

Vanquish

Vanquisher of shills
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
2,663
Reaction score
358
Points
98
Ever consder that the "plaintiffs" are often backed by a network of ambulance chasing litigating corporations or a tax exempt network of social issue left wingers? Why shouldn't they have to pay for frivolous lawsuits?

Did you read the article? Apparently not, because it explains how the simple, reasonable question you asked isn't the point. I'm not going to do your reading for you.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

New Topics

Forum List

Top