June 25, 2008

Exxon Valdez Outrage-U S Supreme Court Cuts Punitive Damages to Ridiculous Levels

While this topic is virtually unrelated to lawsuit funding, it is related to yesterday's post about the US Chamber's "tort reform" strategies. As reported in several newspapers today, the US Supreme Court struck down the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill punitive damage award from an already adjusted $2.5 Billion to a mere $500 Million.. The decision serves as a glaring reminder that this notion of "tort reform" as it relates to the interests of big business and big insurance always screws the little guy. Most of these "little guys" probably vote for the very people that the US Chamber spends millions on to support its' pro-business, anti-consumer agenda. These misguided citizens don't realize what their support for these anti-consumer crusades means until a piece of the pro-business agenda effects them. In this case, those most effected are Republican voting citizens of the state of Alaska, most of whom are fisherman and their families. Justices Ginsberg and Kennedy led the dissent, which correctly stated that it is up to Congress to legislate punitive damage restrictions, not the United States Supreme Court.

The Court, which continues its crusade of providing a pro-business legislative service from the bench, found that the punitive damage award may not exceed the amount of damages paid to compensate victims. Justice David Souter said, writing for the majority, that a penalty should be "reasonably predictable". Never mind that this was the worst oil spill in United States history and virtually destroyed 1200 miles of Alaskan coastline. Never mind that a federal jury ruled that an appropriate "penalty" for the spill was $5 Billion and a federal appeals court cut that award in half and ruled that $2.5 Billion was appropriate. The ruling reduces the punitive award to the 33,000 plaintiffs effected by the spill and the ruling from $75,000 per plaintiff (ruled "fair" by the jury that heard the case) to a mere $15,000 per plaintiff, hardly enough to put back the pieces of their shattered lives. According to some reports, considering today's gas prices and Exxon Mobil profits, the $2.5 Billion award was approximately 2 days of Exxon Mobil's gross profits. Exxon Mobile's profits for 2007 were almost $41 Billion.

Jeffrey Fisher, attorney for the plaintiffs said: "Commercial fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners, businesses and local governments involved in the lawsuit have each received about $15,000...for having their lives and livelihood destroyed and haven't received a dime of emotional-distress damages."

And what did the US Chamber have to say about the award reduction? Amar Sarwal, general litigation counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the ruling gives an "extraordinary amount of guidance" to courts beyond the Exxon Valdez case. Did you catch that? The Chamber is looking forward to the next batch of citizens that it can screw!

My advice to all readers of this blog is to write to the Supreme Court, your Senators and Congressmen and express outrage at the decision. I would also suggest to all of you Alaskans who voted for George W. Bush twice and who have voted Republican for many years to take a long look at our country's current state of affairs, especially at how our government continues to sacrifice the rights of individual citizens in support of big business, big insurance and other pro-business special interests. I encourage you to study the issues and the candidates and vote for those who speak out in support of individual rights, not corporate ones. Together, we can take back our country, one vote at a time.

Lawsuit Financial provides capped lawsuit financing for Auto Accident Cases, Slip and Fall Cases, Product Liability Cases, Medical Malpractice Cases, Nursing Home Neglect Cases and many other types of personal injury litigation. Call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) to discuss your case funding situation or contact us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com. The call and the advice are absolutely free.

May 14, 2008

Bush Administration Rules Limit Products Liability Lawsuits

According to a Washington Post article entitled "Bush Administration Rules Limit Lawsuits", the despicable Bush Administration is accomplishing citizen-screwing legal liability reforms through the back door when it could not get what it wanted through the front.

The article recounts how, through administrative rules implementation "Bush has found another, quieter way to make it more difficult for consumers to sue businesses over faulty products". Since it has been unable to persuade congress to listen to its proposals on federal tort "deform", the Administration has placed lawsuit limits into 51 rules proposed or adopted since 2005, regulating commonly used commodities such as drugs, cars, railroads, medical devices and food.

Not surprisingly, these limits have been sharply criticized by consumer advocates and trial lawyers, while being praised by industry. In this writer's opinion, it is another in a long line of Bush Administration attempts to screw the public while shielding big business from legitimate lawsuits. This expansive interpretation of preemption substantially limits a consumer's right to sue. The American Association of Justice is, obviously, very critical of these backdoor tactics. Jon Haber, AAJ chief executive officer, said that the agencies are engaging in "a brazen end run around Congress, the Constitution and the states in an effort to let negligent corporations off the hook and knowingly put consumers at risk."

The drug industry is already trying to use these administrative shields in a highly publicized drug liability lawsuit. Dennis Quaid and his wife are suing Baxter Healthcare Corp over the labeling of the drug Heparin, which, they say, resulted in overdose injuries to their newborn twins. Quaid testifed Wednesday at a congressional hearing on the issue. Baxter is arguing that this administrative preemption prevents the Quaids from pursuing the case

Contact President Bush and let him know how you feel about having your rights taken from you behind the backs of your local elected officials.

Lawsuit Financial provides legal finance services to plaintiffs in Products Liability Lawsuits and a variety of other personal injury lawsuits. For a free analysis of your legal funding situation, please contact us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit our website at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.

May 1, 2008

Auto Negligence Tort Recovery in Michigan-Tell the Michigan Supreme Court to Stop Punishing the Injured & Disabled. Ask the Michigan Legislature to Intervene.

The MIchigan Supreme Court continues its punitive campaign against injured and disabled Michigan citizens in favor of big insurance profits, and, in the process, forces all Michigan Citizens to pay dearly for worthless insurance. On April 25, 2008, the Court decided Jones v Olsen, in which they indicated that a broken neck was, essentially, the same as a broken finger, neither of which qualified for tort compensation under the Michigan No-Fault Law's tort threshold of "serious impairment of body function". The linked decision contains no explanation of the majority's thinking, but it contains a couple of scathing dissents from two courageous justices, Justice Elizabeth Weaver and Justice Michael Cavanagh. These two, along with Justice Marilyn Kelly, have long been dissenting from the Majority of Four's opinions that continue to erode Michigan tort law in favor of big insurance. I encourage the reader of this blog to study the injuries described in the dissenting opinions and the Michigan Court of Appeals rational in determining that the plaintiff was entitled to have the value of his injuries decided by a jury of his peers and not by Court of Appeals or Supreme Court "preemption".

The "Majority of Four" has ignored long established precedent and old-fashioned common sense in consistently ruling against consumers and in favor of insurance companies in Auto Accident Lawsuits, Premises Liability Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, and Products Liability Lawsuits. It has also, absurdly, restricted auto accident victims from medical and wage loss benefits owed by their own first party insurance companies.

There is an election in November, and a strong pro-justice candidate will run against Chief Justice Clifford Taylor, who is probably the most pro-insurance company, anti-citizen Supreme Court Justice to ever wear the robe. If you are a Michigan citizen and you care about your precious civil right to pursue justice when you are wronged, you must vote in November on the non-partisan ballot. Many people think that if they vote for a particular party on a straight line vote, they are voting for the judicial candidates as well. THAT IS NOT TRUE!. Sometimes people blindly vote for the incumbent, thinking that he/she has the most experience. If you vote for this incumbent, Clifford Taylor, you are selling your rights to big business! I encourage you to vote for the pro-justice yet to be named, Supreme Court candidate, and against Justice Clifford Taylor. Contact your State Representative or State Senator and tell them you support legislation to define "serious impairment" in a way that permits Michigan citizens to collect damages for their injuries. Together, we, the citizens of Michigan, can take back our civil justice system.

Lawsuit Financial Corporation provides lawsuit funding to injured and disabled victims who have filed Auto Accident Lawsuits, Premises Liability Lawsuits, Medical Malpractice Lawsuits, Workers Compensation Lawsuits, Construction Accident Lawsuits, Product Liability Lawsuits and others. For a free analysis of your litigation funding situation, please call us, toll free, at 1-877-377-SUIT (7848) or visit us on the web at www.lawsuitfinancial.com.