Speaking Of Tort Reform

To The Editor:

I wanted to thank Sam Friedman for his well-reasoned columnexploring the complex issue of tort reform. (See “A View From ThePress Box: Tort Reform Caps Should Be Flexible,” March 17, page25.) At least Mr. Friedman asks many of the right questions, ratherthan spouting sound bite solutions like most in our industry.

The key question he asks is: “Is there abuse of the system?” Iknow this sounds crazy (unless you ponder it a bit), but I wouldhope the answer is “yes,” because any equitable system will besubject to abuse, inevitably. Any system designed to be absolutelyabuse-proof will be absolutely abusive to those it is intended toserve.

The question Mr. Friedman does not ask is: “Are doctors, lawyersand corporations harming people?” The answer is yes. And all threehave miserably failed to voluntarily regulate themselves by acronym(NTLA, ABA, AMA, NASD, etc.). After all, the main cause of medicalmalpractice claims is medical malpractice.

I'll bet if we immediately disbarred the worst 10 percent of alllawyers (an arbitrary number like 10 percent is just as good as a$250,000 cap, isn't it?), and took away the credentials of theworst 10 percent of all doctors, we would notice a huge differencein the tort system.

Thanks again for asking some great questions.

Gary Duell, ChFC
Happy Valley,Ore.

To The Editor:

I just finished reading Sam Friedman's March 17 column broachingthe subject of tort reform. Since I live and work in Mississippiand this is a very important issue at this time for our state, Iwanted to thank Mr. Friedman for bringing questions to light thatmany citizens of our state have.

Being an insurance agent, I admit I first thought that tortreforms limiting excessive punitive damage awards would be greatfor our business community. I also read “The King of Torts,” andhad the same questions Mr. Friedman raised about the actual guiltyparties in these class action suits.

I agree that the defendants usually are not completelyguilt-free, but at the same time all are not equally guilty, orguilty to the highest degree imaginable. I hope when all is saidand done, our legislators will find some common ground and agreethat damages will not be equal, nor should awards be equal.

For those who think that they can just ignore public health andsafety because the numbers-crunchers feel the “cap” is anacceptable risk, I, too, feel that their punishment should begreater. I am going to copy Mr. Friedman's column and send it tosome of my friends and clients, on both sides of the issue, forconsideration and thought. Again, thanks,

Rick Miller
Miller InsuranceAgency
Corinth, Miss.

To The Editor:

I enjoyed Sam Friedman's March 17 column about tort reform capsbeing flexible, and am in total agreement with him. I am a seniorrisk management major, and have been following the medicalmalpractice problem as well as proposed tort reform arguments. Iused some of Mr. Friedman's thoughts (all cited) in one of mypapers.

However, I was disappointed with the information Mr. Friedmangave about “The King Of Torts.” I was over halfway through thebook, and he kind of spoiled it for me. Take it easy with the bookspoiling, but once again thanks for the well-thought-outargument.

Joey Vincent
Senior Risk ManagementMajor
Troy State University
Troy, Ala.

Editor's Note: My apologies for giving away too much ofthe book for those who were reading it, or were interested inreading it. I make the same complaint all the time about movie andtheater reviews. Next week: a letter from a reader who does notagree with my tort reform column. S.F.

Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, April 21, 2003.Copyright 2003 by The National Underwriter Company in the serialpublication. All rights reserved. Copyright in this article as anindependent work may be held by the author.