Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘Indiana’

Florida Supreme Court: Forum Shoppers Need Not Fly South for the Winter

Insurance Journal reports that the Florida Supreme Court has rejected an attempt by seasonal residents to apply more favorable Florida rules to their claims under non-Florida auto insurance policies:

‘Snowbirds” and other part-time Florida residents who insure their cars back home cannot make claims under Florida laws that may be more favorable to them than those in their own states, the state Supreme Court has ruled.

* * *

‘Although Florida welcomes its many visitors, whether for short or extended stays, we cannot rewrite their out-of-state contracts,’ Justice Raoul Cantero wrote for the high court.

Interested readers can view the full Opinion [PDF] in State Farm Mutual Ins. Co. v. Roach, Case No. SC04-1313 (Dec. 14, 2006).

Filed under: , , , ,

Daniel Edelman vs. subprime lenders

The Chicago class action lawyer, vividly remembered for his role in the notorious BancBoston Mortgage case, among others (Nov. 15, 1999, Feb. 7, 2000; see also Dec. 15, 2004 for his involvement in junk-fax litigation) is now filing suits against lenders who solicit persons with poor credit histories for more loans. The Northwest Indiana Times kindly quotes me on the subject (Joe Carlson, “Lawsuits targeting credit scams”, Nov. 27).

Filed under: , , , ,

November 27 roundup

  • In the Supreme Court November 29: Watters v. Wachovia. Also an AEI panel November 28, broadcast on C-SPAN1, 2pm to 4pm Eastern. [Point of Law; AEI; Zywicki @ Volokh]
  • Also in the Supreme Court November 29: Massachusetts v. EPA global warming regulation case. Previously an AEI panel November 21. [Adler @ Volokh; AEI; C-SPAN (Real Media)]
  • Legal cliche: If the facts are against you, pound the law; if the law is against you, pound the facts; if both are against you, pound the table. Table-pounding class of Gerry Spence protegee offers lessons in emotionally creating jury sympathy worth millions. [LATimes]
  • What judicial activism?, Part 7356: Indiana state court judge holds “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” unconstitutional, complains gun industry supported the law. [Indianapolis Star via Bashman; Indiana Law Blog]
  • Entertaining doctor victory in medmal case. [Musings of a Dinosaur via Kevin MD]
  • Dahlia Lithwick gets something right; if only it was on an issue more important than a suit advertisement. [Slate]
  • Leftover from Thanksgiving: lawyers acting like turkeys. [Ambrogi]
  • Ninth Circuit grants potential standing to monkeys over Kozinski dissent. Earlier: Oct. 21, 2004. [Bashman roundup of links]
  • Gloria Allred joins the Borat pile-on. [LATimes]
  • Speaking of, here’s the future case of Allred v. Kramer. More Allred: Oct. 16. [Evanier]
  • Speaking of Allred nostalgia, and of primates, whatever happened to chimpanzee victim St. James Davis? (Mar. 17, 2005; Mar. 8, 2005) [Inside Edition; “The Original Musings”; CNN Pipeline ($)]
  • More Allred nostalgia: is Veronica Mars‘ Francis Capra the next Hunter Tylo? Discuss. [Prettier than Napoleon]

Filed under: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 19 roundup

  • By popular demand: Alexis Brennan gives hot chocolate to daughter in carseat, little girl spills drink and burns herself after mom drives away, mom sues Starbucks; press mentions one hot coffee case where plaintiff won, and none of the dozen-plus where plaintiffs had claims thrown out. (This case is distinguishable from the McDonald’s coffee case if the mother’s claim that she specifically asked for a low-temperature drink holds up.) [Indianapolis Star; WRTV]
  • Former placekicker and current Illinois Supreme Court Justice Robert Thomas wins $7 million libel judgment from newspaper that dared to criticize him. Newspaper unable to defend truth of its reporting, because its discovery requests were blocked by claims of “judicial privilege.” [Lattman; Bashman]
  • Copyright trolls inhibit hip-hop music. Is that a bug or a feature? [Tim Wu @ Slate]
  • Judge to class action plaintiffs: tell me about your dealings with Milberg. [Point of Law]
  • “Plaintiff draws $1.26M penalty. Judge sends developer message: ‘Scorched-earth litigation’ will cost you.” [Knoxville News]
  • Second Circuit: Illegal aliens may sue for wages at U.S. levels. [Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation; New York Sun; both via Bashman]
  • UK Guy Fawkes crowd forced to resort to “virtual bonfire” because of liability fears over real one. [Evening Standard; apologies for losing the hat-tip]
  • Burlington Northern & Santa Fe to artists: don’t paint paintings of our trains or else. [CL&P Blog]
  • Borat update: “One immediate handicap the two fraternity brothers bring to this legal battle is an inability to find a lawyer who knows how to spell ‘aisle.'” [Slate]
  • ATLA on the offense in the new Congress, but their fifth Congressional target, Heather Wilson, held on to her seat against AG Patricia Madrid (Sep. 13). [Point of Law; Albuquerque Tribune]
  • Reliving deregulation debates. [Wallison @ AEI]
  • Inconsistent Internet gambling ban violates existing treaty, may result in trade sanctions; Congress must now decide whether to annoy anti-gambling Puritans, American IP content providers, or horse-racing and lottery industry. [Slate]
  • Roundup of links on new UK law on derivative suits. [Point of Law]
  • World ends: minorities and women hardest hit, as applied to noneconomic damages. [Point of Law; Roth CPA]

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Jackpot justice: $20M for $25,000 insurance claim

Ted Fields was injured in an auto accident with Jimmy Woodley; Woodley’s insurer went bankrupt, so Fields, on January 30, 1997, asked Allstate to pay $25,000 in medical bills and lost wages. Allstate sent Fields forms to fill out, and he did so three weeks later; when Allstate didn’t pay instantaneously, he sued them in March 1997 for bad faith. Fields turned the discovery process into a far-reaching investigation of all of Allstate’s claim procedures; the judge refused to constrain irrelevant deposition questioning, at which point in 1999 Allstate offered Fields the full amount of his $50,000 policy limit rather than waste hundreds of thousands in trial. Fields refused; his attorneys filed several separate motions of default rather than litigate the underlying issues after the trial court denied a summary judgment motion. An appellate court found that Allstate was entitled to summary judgment because of the lack of any evidence of bad-faith in responding to Fields’s claims; the Indiana Supreme Court overturned that ruling on a procedural technicality that the appeal was premature.

The trial court ruled that Allstate was not allowed to present evidence that it was not liable for actual or punitive damages or that it acted “with anything other than dishonest purpose, moral obliquity, furtive design, and/or ill will.” A jury, hearing this one-sided sham of a trial, awarded $20 million in damages, though one would hope the Court of Appeals, hearing a timely appeal, makes the same decision it made before. Press coverage fails to mention that Allstate wasn’t allowed to defend itself at trial; the plaintiff told the jury that the dispute caused high blood pressure, heart problems, and a stroke, though then the question becomes why he isn’t suing his attorney. (Ken Kosky, “Valpo man wins $20 million verdict v. Allstate”, Northwest Indiana Times, Oct. 6).

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Chant and wave placards? Not without insurance you don’t

In Valparaiso, Indiana, Martha Seroczynski stages weekly protests at the county courthouse against the war in Iraq. The Porter County Board of Commissioners has asked her to show proof of homeowner’s insurance and name the county as an additional insured. It’s a county policy of some years’ standing; “Valparaiso Elks Club member Jeanie Stevens said her organization was required to show proof of insurance for its Flag Day ceremony on June 14 at the square.” Ms. Seroczynski’s insurer, however, has raised objections, and that’s aside from the question of why having insurance should be a prerequisite for the right to protest in the first place. County attorney Gwenn Rinkenberger has attempted to resolve the problem by asking Ms. S to sign a waiver promising not to sue the county if injured, but she refuses. “Her right to protest does not relieve us of our responsibility to protect the liability of the other 140,000 citizens of this county,” County Commissioner John Evans has said. (“War protester asked for insurance proof to continue protests”, AP/Fort Wayne (Ind.) News-Sentinel, Aug. 27; Robyn Monaghan, “Protester furor fuels free speech debate”, Northwest Indiana Times, Sept. 6).

Filed under: , ,

$9 million back injury verdict tossed in Indiana

Christopher Berrier claimed, along with his for-hire medical experts, that his back injuries were solely the result of falling on a treadmill at a fitness club. The appeals court reversed because the trial court did not allow the defendant to question experts over Berrier’s previous “back injuries from playing football, a car accident and a fall down seven stairs at work.” (Reliable Development Corp. d/b/a The Fitness Barn v. Christopher Berrier, Jul. 31; AP, Aug. 2). Dr. Linda Stewart had testified that Berrier had absolutely no problem with his back before the date of the accident, so one can see the prejudice in not permititng cross-examination on this point.

Filed under: ,

Stand Your Ground

Back in 1987, Florida set off a national trend by enacting a law which allows adults with a clean record, who pass a safety class, to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun for lawful defense. Although some states already allowed concealed carry, Florida’s 1987 law led to the concept spreading nationally, so that today 38 states have handgun carry laws similar to Florida’s. Now, a new Florida trend is spreading: “Stand your ground” laws.


Last year, Florida enacted a statute stating that victims of a violent felony attack do not have to retreat from the aggressor (even in a public place), and can use deadly force. Now, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has signed a Stand Your Ground law in his state, and the South Dakota legislature has enacted a similar law.

Because most Americans intuitively agree with the principle of self-defense, opponents of the law, such as the Brady Center, have resorted to making silly claims, such as asserting that the laws allow “a person who just feels something bad is going to happen to open fire in public.” A careful look at the Florida model, which I blogged about last year, leads to the conclusion that the Brady Center’s claims are unmerited.

Filed under: , , ,

Shareholder Suits Reach New High

Apparently, 2005 was a record year for class-action securities settlements, (Patti Bond, “Class-Action Securities Settlements Set Record, Indianapolis Star, Feb 13)

If it has not become abundantly clear already, I am not a lawyer, so I can’t comment on the legal ins and outs. But from a philosophical standpoint, shareholder suits have never made much sense to me. While I can understand the shareholders of the company suing a minority shareholder who might be enriching themselves disproportionately (e.g. Rigas family at Adelphia), suits by shareholders against the company they own seem… crazy.

Any successful verdict for shareholders against the company would effectively come out of the pockets of the company’s owners who are.. the shareholders. So in effect, shareholders are suing themselves, and, win or lose, they as a group end up with less than if the suit had never been started, since a good chunk of the payout goes to the lawyers. The only way these suits make financial sense (except to the lawyers, like Bill Lerach) is if only a small subset of the shareholders participate, and then these are just vehicles for transferring money from half the shareholders to the other half, or in other words from one wronged party that does not engage in litigation to another wronged party who is aggressively litigious. Is there really justice here?

OK, you could argue that many of these shareholders are not suing themselves, because they are past shareholders that dumped their stock at a loss. But given these facts, these suits are even less fair. If these suits are made by past shareholders who held stock (ie, were the owners) at the time certain wrongs were committed, they are in fact paid by current and future shareholders who may well have not even owned the company at the time of the abuses, and who may in fact be participating in cleaning the company up. So these litigants are in effect making the argument that because the company was run unethically when they owned it, they are going to sue the people who bought it from them and cleaned it up? Shouldn’t the payment be the other way around, with past owners paying current owners for the mess they left?

Filed under: , ,