I think it should work a little different. If I accidentally hurt someone, their insurance should cover the medical bill. Then my insurance should redeem their insurance for the bill. My insurance rates go up, since I am a risky person. No law suit or gov interaction at all.
-
-
-
Law is the process that decides that your insurance should pay rather than their insurance.
-
Instead of using law to decide how much each insurance company should pay, the insurance companies should have agreements together on how to handle these cases. How well an insurer can negotiate impacts the quality of coverage the insurer can sell.
-
Then the insurance firms would also be laws, and you'd pick your law by picking your insurer. Not crazy, but a much bigger change that I was proposing.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Robin, I’ve been litigating catastrophic tort cases since the 1980s. Would you mind identifying who/what in liability law is “encouraging” this?
-
I just mean to refer to the fact that most people won't actually pay much even if the court declares that they should. Other parties take that into account when deciding who to sue.
-
Thanks for clarifying. In practice, it’s much more nuanced than that. There are all sorts of possible limiting rules and doctrines, ie, comparative fault, contributory negligence, joint and several liability, et. al. The “sue everyone in sight” makes for popular narrative, but...
-
I wasn’t claiming to describe all related nuances in one tweet. Do you often encounter tweets that do?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You're just replicating the same problem by shifting inducement of "too much care" onto the insurer policing (via pricing) its insureds rather than the deep pocket policing its counter-parties/agents.
-
I don't see that insurance induces too much care.
-
Indeed, if poorly-executed, it can induce less care, via moral hazard and adverse selection. But point remains: What is an insurer if not a contingent "deep pocket" for rent? And why do you believe insurers will strike a better balance than deep pockets implicitly insuring now?
-
The point is to make the pockets equally deep, so that isn't the main factor used to pick who to sue.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'll reiterate my recommendation to push this first as an immigration reform proposal :)
-
Happy to endorse that proposal, but I doubt it addresses the typical real objection to immigration.
-
It *does* address the "they just consume welfare dollars and commit so much crime" part. Agree it doesn't address everything.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
And once everyone carries liability insurance the pockets grow deeper and the suits feel less individually harmful, reinforcing a cycle of litigiousness.
-
We've had many times and places in history where deep pockets hasn't resulted in excess lawsuits.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Why do they hate it?
-
Having to pay insurance premiums.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.