|
|
|
|
|
|
by retr0grad3
4420 days ago
|
|
|
My wife is a defense attorney that works claims litigation, e.g insurance defense for carriers. Watching "Hot Coffee" was very difficult for her. Part of her job during the pre-trial phase of any case is to push as much potential liability on a claimant as possible and push for mediation; trial should be avoided at all cost. |If a case goes to trial it is her job to make the claimant liable (enough) so that the damages are split better. For 'frivolous cases' to actually hit trial months of depositions, research, and meditations have to fail. If a case actually goes to trial it's because one side feels so confident in their case that mediation is not an option. As a side note, in insurance cases in Texas, the jury is not allowed to know that any insurance money has been paid. So in a situation where someone is hurt in an accident by another driver then sues for medical expenses, the jury is not told that the medical expenses (are often) already paid for by the carriers. They're also not told that, no matter how much money they award, if it falls under the civil caps on awards (in Texas) that the judge will automatically lower their award after they leave the court room. |
|
|
I agree with most of those points. Yes, the jury does not know them, and that effects their decisions. Knowing those things would also effect their decisions. Because that's how decisions work. Therefore, the stance you must take is, which scenario will yield results which are more appropriate?
I assume the jury is also not told whether the defendant has liability insurance against the results of the very case being deliberated either, which is a point just as salient. To me, it should not make any difference whether someone had the foresight to insure themselves when being awarded damages.