Lawsuit Finance Blog

I read an interesting expose put out by the American Association of Justice regarding insurance company tactics employed to prevent ordinary citizens from getting appropriate compensation for their injuries. Tricks of the Trade: How Insurance Companies Deny, Delay, Confuse and Refuse is written in the form of a law review article and tells the sad tale of the lengths that insurance companies will go to in their effort to subvert justice.

I do not intend, in this forum to regurgitate the entire article; it is very well written and informative, and the consumer (and the attorney) would be wise to read the entire article. To highlight, however, the article breaks down insurance tactics into six distinct categories:

1. Deny: This refers to the tactic of systematically denying claims to increase the bottom line, rewarding employees who do it well and punishing or replacing those who don't.

2. Delay: This is the practice of payment avoidance until people give up (Lawsuit Financial can provide assistance, here; more on that later) or, in despicable fashion, with elderly and chronically ill policy holders, refuse payment until the policy holder dies!

3. Incomprehensibilty: Refers to policy language that is virtually impossible for a lay person to understand, resulting in their not pursuing valuable, paid for, rights

4. Credit Scoring: The companies use credit scores to artificially increase rates to the poor and certain ethnic groups.

5. Retroactive Rescission or Cancellation: This is a policy used against seriously ill people to avoid paying a claim that will require multiple and substantial benefits over time because of the severity of the illness or injury.

6. Canceling for an Inquiry: This is the practice of canceling someone before they file a claim for the "sin" of merely inquiring about the possibility.

The article suggests several measures that the consumer can take to help avoid these tactics. The article recommends that the consumer:

Read his/her policy carefully, know his/her coverages and how to appeal a denial of coverage.

Be very careful in completing insurance claims forms as the insurance company may use an honest mistake as a reason to cancel or deny coverage.

Do not cash a premium refund check because this will likely rescind the consumer's insurance policy.

Put everything in writing; you will likely need it for proof. Keep a record of all correspondence and bills.

Contact your state insurance department or, if all else fails, consult with a lawyer. Most of all, says the author, DO NOT GIVE UP. Insurance companies count on you giving up. The author encourages you to fight for your rights.

While I strongly urge all consumers to read the important article that inspired this post, it does not mention lawsuit funding as an option to avoid some of these tactics and that is, in my humble opinion, a fundamental failing.

After you've hired that lawyer and decided not to give up, this serious question arises if you are injured and/or disabled: "How am I going to pay my bills? How can I fight this huge, well-financed and powerful insurance company when I can't work and have no income or savings?"

The answer, of course, is a non-recourse, legal cash advance from Lawsuit Financial. Legal finance is the great equalizer; the money that you need to get you from an earlier stage in the lawsuit to its conclusion. You will not have to cave in to insurance company stall tactics; legal funding will level the playing field and give you the staying power to slay Goliath. Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for most personal injury cases, disability cases and other insurance cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will evaluate your lawsuit funding situation promptly and fairly, often in less than 24 hours. You have nothing to lose. The call is free; the advice could save your valuable assets and, above all, save your valuable case.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

Since our historic election of Barak Obama, a week ago, I have seen several articles that suggest that the subject of "tort reform" (which is really means "anti-justice" and "pro-insurance company") will be a hot political issue in his administration.

First, CQ reports: "One early policy battle in the Obama years will probably be the question of 'tort reform...plaintiffs' attorneys are keen to reverse Bush-era restrictions on tort litigation, while business groups fear that a Democrat-dominated federal government will do the bidding of the Democrats' influential trial-lawyer base of donors and expand plaintiffs' rights in tort cases... Barack Obama may well disappoint both advocacy factions."

Obama cast a 2005 Senate vote for a law shifting class action lawsuits to federal courts, considered a major business community priority. Linda Lipsen, senior vice president for public affairs of the American Association for Justice, said that while Obama's 2005 vote is 'a concern,' "...we are comfortable with our new president's priorities." According to CQ, the AAJ plans to press for an expansion on the right to sue for injuries related to faulty medical devices and for legislation barring companies from requiring customers to arbitrate rather than sue. Despite the outcome of the election, a spokesperson for the US Chamber of Commerce's Institute for Legal Reform warned that "victory at the polls does not mean voters 'want Congress to give the plaintiffs' bar more ways to sue.'"

To further indicate that war is about to be waged on the liability front, the National Law Journal reports that "business and trial lawyers are expected to go head-to-head again over tort-related issues, but congressional experts now give the trial lawyers significantly more heft in the new Congress." David Arkush, director of Public Citizen's Congress Watch, said that another "big agenda item" are "reversals of the Bush administration's expansion of federal pre-emption of state tort lawsuits in a number of regulated areas [and, in the workplace,] removing the current $300,000 cap on compensatory damages and punitive damages for violations of Title VII and the Americans With Disabilities Act."

It is also important to note that President Obama will appoint several federal district court and appellate court judges during his administration, including probable appointments to the United States Supreme Court. Thus, the battle lines are drawn and we should have a very interesting 4-8 years (at both state and federal levels) monitoring the simple right to civil justice in this country.

Lawsuit Financial provides litigation funding for Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your law suit funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

One topic of controversy in Michigan law is the so-called "open and obvious" doctrine. The doctrine has established that if a defect is "open & obvious", and a person falls over or on it, that person cannot collect damages unless the defect is "effectively unavoidable" or creates "an unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Most recent Michigan decisions have declared conditions that would cause someone to fall are unlikely to cause severe harm; therefore, the "high risk" requirement is not met. Plaintiffs attorneys have strongly disagreed; as stated before in this forum, the death of diet Doctor Atkins and the severe injury suffered by Ed McMahon caused by falls would suggest that falls can and often do result in serious and fatal injuries and that simple falls can create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm".

Recently, the New York Times studied the issue of the serious injuries suffered by and the complex care needed for elderly citizens who have fallen. The article focuses upon the elderly and indicates that, according to the Center for Disease control, 1.8 million Americans over age 65 are injured in falls. If the fall is "minor", a victim may rebound as if an injury never happened. For some, however, the fall sets off a downward spiral of physical and emotional problems — including serious illnesses and infections that become too much for their bodies to withstand. In 2005, the last year for which statistics are available, out of 433,000 people over 65 who were admitted to hospitals after suffering a fall, an astounding 15,800 died as a direct result of the fall. This statistic does not include a large number of seniors who survive the fall but cannot survive the indirect consequences of the fall.

The next time someone suggests to you that a fall is no big deal, remind them of Dr. Atkins, Ed McMahon, or the unfortunate people referred to in the New York Times article.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Michigan residents should be outraged at the injustice of the "open & obvious" standard and the suggestion that a fall cannot create an "unreasonably high risk of severe harm". Contact your state representatives and ask them to sponsor a bill to make premises liability law fair for Michigan citizens. Every other area of the law is subject to the application of the comparative negligence standard except Premises Liability. Ask your State Representative to apply straight comparative negligence to Premises Liability litigation.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is one of the country's leading law suit funding companies. We provide non-recourse cash advances in Premises Liability/Slip & Fall cases and all other Personal Injury cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

Apparently, the United States Supreme Court is going to take up the issue of absolute immunity for drug manufacturers if their dangerous products are FDA approved. Levine v Wyeth has been a topic of much discussion in legal circles and the case causes significant concern. As reported previously in this blog, my home state, Michigan, is currently the only state that gives drug manufacturers complete immunity if their horrendous drug was first FDA approved. As a result, disabled and disfigured Michigan citizens as well as the survivors of those killed by these bad drugs have been completely shut out of any chance of recovery. Thus, Vioxx, Fen-Phen, Redux, etc. victims can be compensated in 49 states; Michigan citizens are shut out.

A Supreme Court ruling for Wyeth in Levine v Wyeth would nationalize the Michigan disaster and prevent all United States citizens from pursuing big pharmacuetical companies for the devastating consequences of bad drugs. We lock up people for selling drugs that make us high; but we should give a free pass to those who sell drugs that kill and maim? What's wrong with this picture? Here's an interesting quote from the article that prompted this post:

"With 11,000 regulated drugs on the market and almost 100 more approved every year, the understaffed agency [the FDA] doesn't have the resources to adequately ensure both efficacy and reasonable safety... The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety,'' said editors of the New England Journal of Medicine. This marks the first time that every editor-in- chief of the medical journal signed a Supreme Court brief. Obviously, FDA approval does not even approach a guarantee of safety for any drug; it is illogical and almost criminal to grant immunity simply because this overtaxed agency grants approval to a dangerous pharmaceutical.

Complete immunity for FDA approved drugs has been a disaster for Michigan citizens. It is my fervent hope that the United States Supreme Court has the wisdom and compassion to realize that drug company immunity is a free pass to the drug industry to injure, maim and kill our citizens without regard to safety. The most important safety tool available to our citizens is the threat of a lawsuit against an offending drug manufacturer. The elimination of this vital tool will permit the industry to "self-regulate". If we have learned anything from the country's financial crisis, we have learned that self-regulation does not work.

Lawsuit Financial is a nationwide legal funding company that provides litigation plaintiffs with interim financial help while they wait for their litigation to resolve. This important lawsuit financing service is available for many drug liability cases and for auto accidents and/or any other type of personal injury case. Please visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com our call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT(7848).

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

It has been almost one month since Ohio Governor Ted Strickland signed new legal finance legislation in Ohio that permitted Ohio citizens to engage in non-recourse civil litigation advance transactions with lawsuit funding companies like Lawsuit Financial. Since then, we have received many requests for Ohio legal funding from Ohio Citizens and we have provided numerous legal cash advances to Ohio litigants. If you are from Ohio or from elsewhere in the United States, and have pending personal injury lawsuit with a retained attorney, Lawsuit Financial is ready to provide legal financial assistance to you and your family. If you do not yet have an attorney, Lawsuit Financial can assist you in locating an attorney who specializes in the type of case you wish to pursue.

Remember, under the new Ohio law:

1. Law suit funding contracts may be canceled by the consumer within five business days without penalty;

2. Legal finance contracts must provide the total dollar advance and a breakdown of fees, including the annualized rate of return, must be clearly disclosed in the contracts;

3. To be valid, the legal financing contract requires written acknowledgment by the attorney representing the consumer in the civil action or claim, specifying that the attorney has reviewed the contract and all case funding costs and fees have been disclosed;

4. For French and Spanish-speaking consumers, litigation funding contracts will be written in their primary language;

5. The lawsuit funding company must agree that it has no right to make any decisions involving the claim and its settlement (this has always been true of legal funding agreements).

Since personal injury cases almost always involve income loss, financial stress can often force the plaintiff to settle too early and too cheap. Lawsuit financing is provided to prevent that from happening. Lawsuit funding is provided completely contingent on the outcome of the case; the money is free if the case resolves without payment to the plaintiff. Lawsuit Financial also provides litigation funding for Auto Accident victims and all other personal injury victims with pending lawsuits. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848), and talk to an experienced legal finance representative for free. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We want to be your law suit funding company and we will do everything in our power to earn your business.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

I recently came across an article in the Salt Lake Tribune detailing a study about "Never Events", those serious medical errors occurring in Utah hospitals that "are never supposed to happen". These kinds of studies are showing up in hospitals across the country and the trend is very disturbing. In an era where people's access to the civil justice system is being restricted or prevented, where compensation for serious injury or death is being capped by lawmakers at artificially low levels, serious injury and death caused by medical neglect is continuing to occur, unchecked, at an alarming rate.

In Utah, the study reflected "Never Events" from October 2001 to April 2007. During that time, there were 219 such events. 47% of these events resulted in death; 21% resulted in a major loss of body function; 25% involved wrong site surgeries, and 3% resulted in suicide.

Hospitals and doctors can do remarkable things for their patients; they save lives and cure illnesses every day, in hospitals and clinics all over the country. However, they can also make mistakes, serious ones, and making them accountable for those mistakes will make them more careful, almost always, and help prevent them from reoccurring. That is a good thing, isn't it? So, the next time you hear someone say "junk" or "frivolous" in front of the word "lawsuit", show him the referenced article. People are getting scarred, maimed, and, even killed by preventable medical neglect; when they or their loved ones sue for their damages or loss, they are chastised by their neighbors and restricted by the acts of their own government. Seeking redress for serious injuries or death is not a "frivolous" endeavor. We are all one incident or life-changing event from being the next victim of this type of unfortunate occurrence.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is a leading provider of lawsuit financing. The company and its attorney/director, have more combined legal and litigation finance experience than anyone in the industry. Lawsuit Financial is a risk-taking company. We provide lawsuit capital advances in Birth Trauma, Medical Malpractice cases and we have unique trial lawyer expertise in evaluating and funding such cases. We also provide funding for Auto Accident Cases, Premises Liability Cases, Dog Bite Cases, Airplane Crash Cases and many other personal injury cases. Please call us toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your personal injury case funding situation. Or, visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

This unbelievable article should make all of us feel fortunate that we live in the United States. Even our increasingly restrictive tort system would never permit a result such as this.

A 22-year old woman from St Petersburg, was trying to become only the third woman in Russia's history to conclude a successful sexual harassment suit against her male employer.
She argued that she had been locked out of her office after refusing to have sex with her 47-year-old boss.

The judge said he threw out the case, not for lack of evidence, but because he felt that the employer had acted gallantly. "If we had no sexual harassment we would have no children," the judge ruled.

Apparently, sexual harassment in Russia was an accepted part of life in the work place, under Soviet rule, and little has changed in post-Soviet Russia. Obviously, the country has a long way to go on issues of equality of the sexes and a harassment-free workplace. So does the good old U S of A, but, compared to at least one country, we are light years ahead.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides non-recourse legal funding for victims of sexual harassment, employment discrimination, and other workplace injury litigation. We can, in most instances, provide 24-48 hours lawsuit funding after receiving minimal case information from the handling attorney. For a fast and free analysis of your case funding situation, call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. We will do all that we can to assist you during this difficult time in your life.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

I thought it was important to share this with the regular readers (or new ones) of this blog. I don't have much to say about it; it serves as a reminder to all who seek justice that anyone can argue anything, as long as there is an audience that believes in the nonsense being proposed. In this instance, the so-called Institute for Legal Reform (simply, an anti-justice organization looking to restrict the rights of average injured or disabled citizens to seek compensation for their injuries or disabilities in the civil justice system) has published an article entitled "Is Lawsuit Abuse Threatening Your Child's Education?"

Essentially, the absurd position taken in the article is that fear of lawsuits is eliminating school recess and causing the removal or playground equipment from America's schools. However, even a video that is the centerpiece of this article admits that safety (or lack of it) is one reason behind this so-called phenomenon.

While some opine that there are multiple reasons that schools are removing recess from their schedules (one example is to do more teaching of the tests required by No Child Left Behind), those reasons really beg the safety question, so do the constant attacks on the civil justice system. Attacking litigation, and, by implication, trial lawyers and litigants is currently popular (unless, of course, you are the one who is injured or disabled), but I have to ask: Will common sense ever prevail? My friend, Jan Brandon, a Michigan trial attorney said it best: "You have to wonder if they ever considered the alternative of just making things safe to begin with."

Profound? Absurd? Industry could avoid lawsuits by, simply, making things safe? What a novel concept! So, the next time you see an article like this, instead of immediately attacking the litigant or the litigation, ask whether the individual or company being sued could have provided its product or service with safety measures that would have prevented the incident from occurring in the first place. Does that sound fair?

Lawsuit Financial is a leading provider of legal funding services in Product Liability litigation and, in addition, provides lawsuit financing for Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury litigation. Contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call and the advice are absolutely free. We specialize in assisting "David" in beating "Goliath".

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

Dave Freeman, co-author of the best-selling book "100 Things to Do Before You Die" has died. He was only 47years old. He died after hitting his head in a fall at his Venice, CA home.

Regular readers of this blog might be wondering why I would report on this; it is, seemingly, unrelated to legal issues. No lawsuit has been filed; typically, a fall at one's own home is an excluded event in a homeowner's insurance policy. I doubt that Mr. Freeman's family will be able to pursue any type of litigation.

I have two reasons for penning this post: One is, simply, to point out the obvious irony. Life is short; I didn't know Mr. Freeman, but he knew that life is precious and, sometimes, precarious, and he wrote about it. He counseled all of us to enjoy life to its fullest. The best way to honor Mr. Freeman's memory is to read his book and do some of things he suggested or those things you've always wanted to do but "never find the time". I've certainly put things off for "later"; I'm certain most of you have too. Enjoy life, before you run out of time.

The second reason for writing this is more true to my form and my roots. In Michigan, recent court decisions have placed serious restrictions on a person's right to litigate premises liability/slip and fall cases. One of the main justifications for these restrictions is the false premise that a fall is unlikely to cause a serious injury. Well, I suggest that those who support that ridiculous theory should have a talk with Mr. Freeman's or, perhaps, Dr Atkins' (the famous diet doctor who also died from a fall in 2003) loved ones. Perhaps they should talk with Ed MacMahon (the subject of a previous post on this blog), whose serious injuries from a fall has turned his financial life upside down. Of course a fall can cause a serious injury and to suggest otherwise is nonsense spewed by the so-called tort reformers. We, as citizens of the country with the greatest civil justice system in the world should resist these so-called legal reforms, which are really nothing more than corporate welfare paid for by our weakest citizens: the injured and disabled.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation is one of the country's leading law suit funding companies. We provide non-recourse cash advances or legal funding for Premises Liability/Slip & Fall cases, Auto Accidents cases, and all other Personal Injury cases. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

I write this from Michigan, where legislation prevents its citizens from pursuing litigation for injuries, disabilities or death caused by any drug that has been FDA approved. In other words, if a drug is good enough for the FDA, it is good enough for the Michigan legislature and good enough for its citizens. If the drug has been FDA approved, regardless of how dangerous it is or what has been discovered about it after approval, a Michigan citizen who has been seriously injured by the drug cannot pursue its manufacturer for damages.

As a former trial lawyer, naturally, I vehemently disagree with this legislation. I was surprised to find that I have an unlikely ally, doctors! The New England Journal of Medicine has filed a friend of the court brief to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Wyeth v. Levine, stating that the "Food and Drug Administration is in no position to guarantee drug safety" and that "lawsuits can serve as a vital deterrent and protect consumers if drug companies don't disclose risks". You read that correctly folks; lawyers didn't say it, doctors did.

"The FDA alone simply lacks the ability to serve as the sole guarantor of drug safety. Without the discoveries dredged up by plaintiffs' lawyers through liability litigation, the FDA would be stripped of an essential source of information that the agency has consistently relied on when making its regulatory decisions, and the American public would be deprived of a vital deterrent against pharmaceutical company misconduct," the doctors argued in their brief.

47 state attorneys general and two former FDA commissioners — David Kessler and Donald Kennedy support the Journal's position. We will watch closely to see what the Supreme Court does with this case, but the support of the Journal and the doctors is certainly welcomed and appreciated.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides lawsuit funding for litigants while they wait for their cases to resolve. The law suit funding company is also involved with state and national justice organizations to promote justice for accident victims. For more information or a free analysis of your legal funding situation, call 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

I saw an interesting article in the New York Times about a study that confirms something that I have believed to be true for as long as I have been a plaintiff trial lawyer. The study found that plaintiffs, on average, receive far better litigation results by settling their case than they do by going to trial. The study was co-authored by Randall L. Kiser a principal analyst at DecisionSet, a litigation consulting firm. Kiser said: “The lesson for plaintiffs is, in the vast majority of cases, they are perceiving the defendant’s offer to be half a loaf when in fact it is an entire loaf or more.”

While many people believe that the system is broken and in need of reform (see previous post) and runaway juries are often giving out seven figure verdicts, the truth is, confirmed by the soon to be released study, that most plaintiffs get less money at trial than the settlement offer that was made prior to trial (so much for the "frivolousness" of litigation!) The study found that Defendants made the wrong decision to proceed to trial only 24% of the time, while plaintiff were wrong in 61% of the cases. In only 15% of the cases, both sides were correct in choosing a trial; in those case, defendant paid less than the amount plaintiff demanded, but plaintiff got more than defendant offered. The study, to be published in the September issue of the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, was based on approximately 2000 cases over a three year period from 2002 to 2005.

The majority of cases settle; according to Kiser, some 80 to 92% of them, which runs contrary to conventional lay thinking that so-called greedy trial lawyers try cases in an effort to collect higher contingency fees. The truth is that the defendants, almost always, choose which cases are going to trial by the case appropriate or inappropriate offers they make. The study makes it quite clear that plaintiff lawyers do not have a significant financial interest in trying cases as opposed to settling them.

It is interesting to note that the study found that more-frequent plaintiff attorney mistakes in choosing trial over settlement were much less costly than less-frequent defense attorney mistakes. The average cost to plaintiff of an incorrect decision to go to trial was approximately $43,000; for defendants, it was a whopping $1.1 Million.

The authors of the study suggest that lawyers may not be properly explaining the odds to their clients. With all due respect to their opinion (this was not part of their official findings), my 30 plus years of experience tells me that the more significant issue is that some clients don't listen to their experienced lawyers and force trials when they should settle. Those that ignore the advice of counsel often learn a hard lessen in the courtroom. The study also found that poor decisions choosing trial over settlement have risen over the last 40 years.

Trying to predict results or handicapping the outcome of litigation is very difficult; I know, I do it for a living. The very essence of a litigation funding professional like me, especially in my fiduciary capacity to investors, is to attempt to predict the litigation outcome. If I choose well, my legal finance company and its investors make a profit; if I choose poorly or some intervening event causes the litigation to fail, our lawsuit financing dollars are forfeited. Legal funding is an extremely risky business. Obviously, for the lawsuit finance professional, a value-appropriate settlement is preferred over a risky trial. This is a key reason why an ethical pre-settlement funding company will, by contract, relinquish any control in the litigation it funds.

I found it quite interesting that an economist and co-author of the study indicated that the study's finding were consistent with prior research on human behavior and risk response. Martin A. Asher said that people are much less willing to risk expected gain and much more willing to risk that which they may lose. “If you approach [a group] and say, I’ll either write you a check for $200, or we can flip a coin and I will pay you nothing or $500, most students will take the $200 rather than risk getting nothing", says Mr. Asher. If, however, you reverse the situation, where group members have to write the check, they will flip the coin, risking a bigger loss in the hope that they will pay nothing; there is more willingness to gamble in that situation.

Lawsuit Financial is one injury case funding company that is willing to take a huge gamble on litigation. The experienced law suit finance company has written checks to countless accident victims with only their personal injury cases or employment cases as potential collateral for repayment. Lawsuit Financial provides legal funding to seriously injured victims of negligence, whether injuries result from a defective product, or from an Automobile Accident, Slip & Fall, Medical Mistake, or other act of negligence by another.

If you have a pending personal injury case and require lawsuit funding visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your case funding situation. The call to Lawsuit Financial is absolutely free; the advice is priceless.

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

As readers of this blog know, I often write about how lawsuit financing from Lawsuit Financial would assist personal injury plaintiffs in pursuit of their litigation. It is my strong opinion that law suit funding is a vital strategic tool in an attorney's fight for justice in the courtroom and in the conference room. A desperate, hungry, plaintiff will not help to facilitate the best possible litigation result.

Once in a great while, though, I talk about something else, and this is one of those times. Today, as I was perusing news with a 'legal slant', I came upon an article in the SW Iowa News. Apparently, a longtime Nebraska State Senator by the name of Ernie Chambers (an atheist), filed a motion in Douglas County (Nebraska) District Court asking the judge to take judicial notice of God .

Readers of this blog might think I have taken leave of my senses in reporting this here. After all, I have been a strong supporter of the average citizen's right to pursue justice in court. I have supported the rights of the "little guy" and I have indicated that legal funding assists all of you "Davids" in beating the "Goliath" insurance companies. Although the case smacks of being frivolous, it is the point Chambers is trying to make that caught my attention and should be of interest to anyone who supports pro-justice causes. Chambers' purpose was to call attention to the question of whether certain lawsuits should be prohibited. He is mocking and attacking the essence of what has become known as "tort reform". Apparently, he decided to proceed with this unusual motion after the Nebraska legislature tried (more than once) to pass limits on what they call "frivolous lawsuits".

"Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts,'' he said. "My point is that anyone can sue anyone else, even God,'' said Chambers, in explaining his cause of action. "If I had just stood here and said, 'The courts should be open to everybody,' then you would all have yawned. This lawsuit grabbed attention".

I couldn't have said it better myself. Let me repeat my favorite quote in the article: "Nobody should stand at the courthouse door to predetermine who has access to the courts". Amen, brother; may God be with you!

The right lawsuit financial services company can make a huge difference in the bottom line of your client’s case. Lawsuit Financial Corporation is your legal funding industry expert. Call us, toll free, 24 hours a day, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) for a free analysis of your case funding situation. Or, contact us by visiting our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

Postscript: Here is what KETV News, in Omaha, had to say with some video from Mr. Chambers:

http://www.ketv.com/newsarchive/17099764/detail.html#

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

A recent article about a wrongful death trial in Pittsburgh, PA caught my attention. The trial resulted in a $2.5 Million plaintiff's verdict on the wrongful death case, but the jury, ignoring the judge's specific instructions, rendered a $0 award on the "Survivor Act" portion of the case. This result suggests a misunderstanding about survivor loss benefits that I would like to clarify in this post.

Pennsylvania, like most jurisdictions, divides Wrongful Death cases into two parts and, in Pennsylvania, those "parts" are contained in two separate statutes. A damage claim under the Wrongful Death Act is brought on behalf of named beneficiaries of the person who died in an accident, typically, a spouse, child or parents of the deceased. Wrongful death damages include funeral and administrative expenses and contributions (both monetary and non-monetary) that would have been made to the beneficiary by the deceased. A Survival Act lawsuit (or count in a Wrongful Death lawsuit) is brought by the administrator or executor of the estate of a person who died in an accident. The damages recoverable in a survival claim include conscious pain and suffering, past wage loss, and future earning power.

It is incredulous for a jury, quoted as stating that "no amount of damages would adequately punish" the hospital, to give $0 damages for the survivor of the deceased. This same jury awarded $2.5 Million in Wrongful Death damages because the hospital's "policies, culture, and lack of competant supervision resulted in the death of Michael Rettger".

The Plaintiffs' attorneys, Paul A. Lagnese and David M. Paul, in Pittsburgh, have filed a motion for new trial, limited only to damages under the Survival Act because they believe the no-cause ($0 award) is against the weight of the evidence. Expert testimony from a CPA and an actuary estimated the deceased's lost earning capacity at between $4 million and $15 million.

"For whatever reason, the jury decided to disregard the judge's instructions and to disregard the overwhelming evidence we presented to the loss of earning capacity," said Lagnese. The attorneys were not permitted to talk to members of the jury after the verdict.

It is inconceivable that a jury, instructed in the law and understanding its charge would render this verdict. Therefore, it is my assumption that the jury did not understand the law as charged by the judge. Thus, for all of you prospective jurors in Pennsylvania and across the United States, allow me to reinterate that the accidental death of a person caused by the negligent or intentional acts of another results in two separate, but related causes of action. The first is a wrongful death action, for compensation to the deceased for his conscious pain and suffering and his death (paid to his beneficiaries). The second is to his survivors, for loss of his companionship and present and future support (measured, in part, by current earnings and future earning capacity). This is a very simplistic explanation, but it covers the basics. Thus, for you prospective jurors, faced with a case similar to the Rettger case, these two causes of action should lead you to the conclusion that an award for both is appropriate and was, in the Rettger case. I wish Mr. Lagnese and Mr. Paul luck in their pursuit of additional and appropriate justice for the family of Mr. Rettger.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides non-recourse legal funding for survivors who pursue Wrongful Death and Survivor Loss litigation. We fund personal injury litigation including, but not limited to Auto Accident cases, Premises Liability cases, Medical Malpractice cases and many other types of personal injury cases. Contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com or call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848). The call and the advice are absolutely free. We specialize in assisting "David" in beating "Goliath".

Posted by Mark Bello of Lawsuit Financial Corp. | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Lawsuit Funding Thought of the Day

Bookmark:

As readers of this blog know, I have been a constant critic of the lack of justice being dispensed by the Michigan Supreme Court and I have asked Michigan residents to contact legislators and complain. I hinted at the fact that Michigan is not alone in dispensing injustice.