Ski Sundown Lawsuit

[mondeo]

Funny. Lawyers telling us not to feel bad for insurance companies because they have to pay lawyers.

Just to elaborate on this a little, the big thing lawyers and insurers (lets throw bankers in there too, while we're at it) have in common is that they don't actually produce anything. There is nothing tangible that comes out of their work.

The reason all three exist, though, is that they enable the proper functioning of modern society. Insurers allow entities to to share risk, lawyers help ensure the rights of legal entities, bankers facilitate the movement of money, essentially facilitating commerce. They all grease the wheels of society, but because that's all they do, they're all looked down upon by the rest of society to some degree. The whole "all they do is take people's money and don't actually give us anything in return" argument. So it's pretty hypocritical of a lawyer to take that view of insurers.

 

[bvibert]

Problem is the definition of frivolous lawsuit. Lawyers will be better than I am at this, obviously, but stupid != frivolous. Ski resorts do have some responsibility for providing reasonably safe conditions. If Sundown made a massive booter onto a flat landing, they'd be responsible for the injuries because of an improperly made jump. Some reasonable level of marking is rational - unmarked, unexpected cliffs in the middle of a beginner trail would be another case of a winning lawsuit waiting to happen. Just because a lawsuit seems like a born loser to us does not make it frivolous. Guilt is not for the judge to decide before a trial.

Frivolous lawsuits aren't the issue. Lawsuits as a means of wealth generation are. I think it's wrong if you're disavowing personal responsibility, but lawsuits to cover costs I don't have much of a problem with. It's the $500 to cover doctors visits and $3 million to cover pain and suffering from a sprained ankle that's the issue.

Okay, I'll give you that I guess.

I still think it's frivolous though...

 

[legalskier]

does this stuff get published on the interweb?

I checked that for you: the Connecticut state court system (like most) does have electronic filing, but it's a paid service. Here's the link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/super/e-services/efile/. The physical file (i.e. hard copy) probably can be accessed free of charge in the courthouse.
I tried to google this case earlier today but only came up with the news accounts.

 

[legalskier]

So it's pretty hypocritical of a lawyer to take that view of insurers.

I don't get paid by insurance companies; lots of lawyers don't.
And my clients are happy to have me standing next to them. I'm usually the only one.

 

[mister moose]

The defendant, effectively, is the insurance company. They stand in the shoes of Sundown and provided the legal representation. Brian, they are getting compensated; in fact, they already got compensated in advance by charging insurance premiums to Sundown for the service they provide--"insurance."
Please, don't get too broken up for insurance companies. The last time I drove though Hartford (August), every large building I saw had the name of an insurance company on it. My friend, they ain't exactly hurting. :smile: Cripes, I think they built that city! (Whoa- I think the insurance company here is The Hartford.) Come to think of it, the biggest building in all of Newark is the Prudential Building (remember how the jihadis tried to blow it up?...but I digress).

And this from what sounds like an educated in the topic poster.

Yes, some insurance companies have done well over the years. That doesn't prevent both the law of supply and demand from affecting rates in the long term* ( I have seen this to be true), and the costs of high awards being passed on to the policy holders.

One huge problem has been juries awarding large punishment damage awards with no regard for where the money is coming from because the 'big bad company' can afford it. I personally have seen an industry almost wiped off the face of the earth because of several stupid awards, rates went through the roof the next year, and no one could afford the insurance. This was not a case of evil doing deserving to get punished. It was a case of a celebrity doing something over his head, stupid, and negligent. Yet his lawyers still won.

You can argue what the parameters of tort reform should be, but in my mind there is no doubt that some sort of tort reform is needed. There has been some incremental change in the last 20 years, (just look at the ski industry), but there needs to be more. Personal Injury litigation should not be the equivalent of Lotto. Over the long term, Insurance companies do not pay court awards, their policyholders do.

*When insurance rates rise to a point where the existing carriers are making a handsome profit, more carriers enter the market, and compete by lowering prices. This continues until the rate of return for the insurance companies drops below what investors are willing to earn, and rates bottom out. Then a big disaster happens, like hurricane Andrew and Hugo in Florida, and most of the carriers bail on writing new policies. Rates rise to cover the loss. Profitability returns, and attract more carriers back in the market. The dollars are large, but the rates of return are still what dictates policy premiums. It is very much a supply and demand situation.

 

[mondeo]

I don't get paid by insurance companies; lots of lawyers don't.
And my clients are happy to have me standing next to them. I'm usually the only one.

And in this case, Sundown is happy to have their insurance agent.

I'm not saying lawyers are always paid by insurance companies, I'm saying that the two roles are similar in that, until you need one, it's pretty easy to detest them by viewing them as drains on society. Which is what you're saying the insurance companies are. Pot, meet kettle.

 

[SkiDork]

Wow!

 

[legalskier]

And this from what sounds like an educated in the topic poster.

Thank you, "mister moose."

 

[legalskier]

Yes, some insurance companies have done well over the years. That doesn't prevent both the law of supply and demand from affecting rates in the long term* ( I have seen this to be true), and the costs of high awards being passed on to the policy holders.
One huge problem has been juries awarding large punishment damage awards with no regard for where the money is coming from because the 'big bad company' can afford it. I personally have seen an industry almost wiped off the face of the earth because of several stupid awards, rates went through the roof the next year, and no one could afford the insurance. This was not a case of evil doing deserving to get punished. It was a case of a celebrity doing something over his head, stupid, and negligent. Yet his lawyers still won.
You can argue what the parameters of tort reform should be, but in my mind there is no doubt that some sort of tort reform is needed. There has been some incremental change in the last 20 years, (just look at the ski industry), but there needs to be more. Personal Injury litigation should not be the equivalent of Lotto. Over the long term, Insurance companies do not pay court awards, their policyholders do.
*When insurance rates rise to a point where the existing carriers are making a handsome profit, more carriers enter the market, and compete by lowering prices. This continues until the rate of return for the insurance companies drops below what investors are willing to earn, and rates bottom out. Then a big disaster happens, like hurricane Andrew and Hugo in Florida, and most of the carriers bail on writing new policies. Rates rise to cover the loss. Profitability returns, and attract more carriers back in the market. The dollars are large, but the rates of return are still what dictates policy premiums. It is very much a supply and demand situation.

This thread has really gone far afield, but please, tell me one insurance company that went under completely due to large jury payouts. They will cry wolf when they see trouble coming; that's to get the changes they want. But they never really go under. AIG doesn't count--it almost went under due to the unbridled greed of one of its units, which the taxpayers got fleeced for when we bailed them out.
I'm not sure what case(s) you're alluding to about "stupid awards," but perhaps if you gave something more than cryptic references an explanation can be found.
Speaking of so-called runaway juries, in another thread we discussed the McDonalds Coffee Cup case, where the jury did make a large award. But that was promptly dismantled on appeal, something they don't mind you not knowing about. That way, when you sit on a panel you may keep the award low, not wanting to be branded the next out of control jury. Checks and balances are built into the system.
I'll speak from my own experience. Years ago I was sitting in a traffic jam in my old Ford Escort when I was creamed from behind by a Lincoln Continental. Liability was clear, as were my injuries. But nearly three years later, after much rehab and pain management, I ended up with all of $5k. Maybe I should have taken it to trial; next time I will.
I sat on a jury once in a sex harassment case, which consumed a month of my life. We awarded a fraction--a very small fraction--of the huge amount requested by the plaintiff. She was visibly upset, but I'm sure some champagne was cracked open later at the insurance company's office.
Personally, my rates have remained stable over the years. As I say, I keep hearing about these mythical runaway juries, just as I've heard of unicorns. But in all my years hanging around the justice system, I've never actually seen one in person.

Btw, in the future I'll be staying on topic.

 

[legalskier]

Which is what you're saying the insurance companies are.

No I'm not; go back and read what I wrote.

 

[mondeo]

As I say, I keep hearing about these mythical runaway juries, just as I've heard of unicorns. But in all my years hanging around the justice system, I've never actually seen one in person.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=76879

 

[Glenn]

This thread DELIVERS!

I think we do need tort reform. If all lawsuites were 100% with merit we wouldn't need it. If someone sues McDonald's for coffee being too hot, we need tort reform. I'm sure Mark E Salamon and John Haymond can get a second job to make up for the abulance chasing they'll no longer be doing.

I think there needs to be some type of disincentive added to the equation.

 

[skidmarks]

Blonski!

Hope the hell Stratton and Faxon aren't on it!


http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf

 

[severine]

Hope the hell Stratton and Faxon aren't on it!


http://www.strattonfaxon.com/news/2010-news/cyclist-brokenneck5.2010.pdf

Just love this quote in their own publication:

Stratton said that during the trial he had
to overcome comments Blonski had made
on her public access mountain biking show
regarding the accident.

Or in other words, she already implicated herself and kind of messed up the case.

And, of course:

Stratton said Blonski was a “great client”
and told him that establishing the MDC’s
liability was more important to her than
the money.

“I just don’t want them to tell me it was
all my fault,” Stratton said his client told
him. “I’d take zero right now for someone
to publicly announce it wasn’t all my
fault.”

But that $2.9million will sure help overcome any bad feelings about that...

 

[speden]

I think one of the main drivers of these type of lawsuits is the quirky, employer based, for profit health insurance we have. If everyone had something like medicare, then people wouldn't be wiped out financially by a stupid accident like this, and they'd be a lot less likely to sue.

Another big contributor is the jury based award system. Juries don't know the appropriate amount of money to award in these cases, since they are being asked to be experts on something they have never done before in their lives. It's not that hard to play on people's sympathies and get a fairly big award, since the juries can rationalize that this is the only way the person with the horrible injury can get the money they need, even if they don't think the party being sued is really that culpable. Juries should be allowed to get an unbiased recommendation from a professional court employed claims adjuster when making an award.

 

[mondeo]

I think one of the main drivers of these type of lawsuits is the quirky, employer based, for profit health insurance we have. If everyone had something like medicare, then people wouldn't be wiped out financially by a stupid accident like this, and they'd be a lot less likely to sue.

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Again, the problem with lawsuits aren't the ones looking to recoup costs. It's the egregious pain and suffering verdicts. The Blonski case is a perfect example, where pain & suffering constituted over 18x the economic damages. She wanted to sue for $150K to recover medical costs and lost wages? Eh, she's still wrong, but whatever. But $2.75 million, just because? I thought she just wanted to be recognized for not being at fault, what's the pain and suffering for?

 

[bvibert]

As I say, I keep hearing about these mythical runaway juries, just as I've heard of unicorns. But in all my years hanging around the justice system, I've never actually seen one in person.

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showthread.php?t=76879

Thank you Mondeo! Anyone who can look at that case and tell me that the system is not completely effed up is a damn fool.

 

[bvibert]

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Again, the problem with lawsuits aren't the ones looking to recoup costs. It's the egregious pain and suffering verdicts. The Blonski case is a perfect example, where pain & suffering constituted over 18x the economic damages. She wanted to sue for $150K to recover medical costs and lost wages? Eh, she's still wrong, but whatever. But $2.75 million, just because? I thought she just wanted to be recognized for not being at fault, what's the pain and suffering for?

Even suing to recover legitimate costs when you're the party at fault is screwed up.

 

[speden]

So legitamately at fault parties won't be responsible at all, and costs will fall to the taxpayers! Hooray!

Well the taxpayers end up paying one way or another anyway. Pick your poison, high insurance rates, coverage limits, co-pays, bankrupt ski areas, sky high lawyer fees, crazy jury awards, bans on out of bounds skiing, etc.

I already pay a lot in medicare taxes, but get no direct benefits unless I'm lucky enough to live to old age. Would make more sense to give everyone benefits and eliminate all the crap that comes with for profit insurance. Why not just acknowledge that freak accidents happen and have a medical system in place that can deal with it without all the overhead of greedy insurance companies, expensive trials, etc.

Legitimate at fault parties can still be sued, you'd just decrease the need to sue not at fault "deep pocket" defendants if our medical coverage in the U.S. wasn't so spotty.

 

[drjeff]

Even suing to recover legitimate costs when you're the party at fault is screwed up.

Welcome to modern day America where for many, even the notion of personal responsibility/accountability, is an unknown concept :smash: