Posted on 09/03/2007 8:34:20 AM PDT by rhema
The last victim of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse has been recovered from the water. The long, complex search for the disaster's cause is ramping up in earnest. It's about the time we'd expect the lawyers to descend. But the pinstripes are already out of the gate, setting new records for jumping the gun in a disaster.
Just days after the collapse, while recovery crews were still battling treacherous waters, Schwebel, Goetz & Sieben -- one of the state's highest profile personal injury firms -- petitioned for access to the site for three attorneys and two expert witnesses.
An immediate inspection of the bridge "will be essential to vigorously ... prosecute wrongful death and personal injury claims" for five unnamed clients, the lawyers insisted.
Such an inspection, of course, would also create big-time publicity and a chance to attract more clients.
U.S. District Judge Patrick Schiltz rejected the petition. Judges have to be civil, of course, but in reading between the lines I detected a judge who was steamed.
In an order heavy with understatement, the judge made clear that the Schwebel firm's appearance in court was highly premature. The firm, he noted, "candidly admitted" that it does not yet know "whom it should sue or what allegations it should make."
The court found no precedent for ordering the government to let private attorneys inspect a mass disaster site while recovery efforts were underway.
The judge emphasized the government's "urgent interest" in recovering victims, clearing unstable and dangerous wreckage, reopening the Mississippi River to commerce and beginning to rebuild the bridge as soon as possible. These challenges are "daunting enough," he said, "without this Court turning loose dozens of lawyers, expert witnesses, and investigators on the site."
The court seemed to anticipate a coming feeding frenzy.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
Check the scum’s payee...bet it is some anti-American group like greenpeace, sierraclub, aclu, that was in some way responsible for holding up construction maintenance of bridges, because it wasn’t sightly, or some other air headed excuse to stop preventive maintenance or worse...politician’s who failed to authorize funding for such activity...waiting with baited breath.
check other disaster areas in recent history and you will find the “pouncing” lawyers syndrome is par for the course
I suspect “Vulturing 101” is a required course at every law school.
The wave of the future, apparently. There's been talk in Virginia of using taxpayer funds to compensate families and victims of the shootings at Virginia Tech.
Truly despicable behavior by truly evil people. A special place in hell for these greedy shysters.
ditto Virginia Tech and the I-35 disasters.
“The wave of the future, apparently. There’s been talk in Virginia of using taxpayer funds to compensate families and victims of the shootings at Virginia Tech.”
Sadly, that defeats the only legit purpose of liability actions.
Lawsuits make it more expensive to “save money” by taking safety shortcuts. Otherwise, your hospital might not buy the proper machines, or staff w/ the proper number of nurses, etc. You car maker might opt for less crash testing, or your airlines might find it more profitable to extend the time between wing inspections.
Lawsuits take any possible costs savings out of such half-a&&ed measures. It is the free market’s replacement for government regulations. It isn’t perfect, but it certainly does stop many companies from saving money at the expense of your safety.
Consumerism, even usage of public facilities, would be best served by caveat emptor thereby multiplying the value of a brand.
Good on the judge!!!
Tort reform BUMP!
I’m torn on the issue of gross negligence or incompetence.
Those guilty of it should not go free. Nor is satisfaction to the state enough. Biblically, restitution to victims is also in order. Sometimes double and triple restitution. You cannot just take someone’s bread winner through gross negligence, and then get away with paying damages for his car and calling that sufficient.
If it takes lawyers to make fairness to victims & families happen, then I’m OK with that.
I’ve heard estimates of $250,000-450,000 being spent per person in Katrina.
We don’t need catastrophic life insurance and now we don’t need property insurance either.
Let me know when the corrupt Democrats who tanked New Orleans will be sentenced and fined for their crimes.
But this one is almost humorous (.pdf file).
BUMP to Judge Schiltz!
No fair injecting a rational, common sense argument into an emotional outburst!!!
Those estimates are wrong. Somebody took the total amount of relief dollars and divided that number by the population of NOLA. That’s wrong in it’s very basis as the relief dollars used covered the entire Gulf coast and not just NOLA.
If you knew the population of all the counties harmed by Katrina and divided that number into the relief dollars you'd get a reasonable number. But I don't know what that would prove.
Precisely. Don’t you think gross negligence should have to pay?
For example, anyone encouraging folks to move back into below sea level New Orleans should have their head examined at a minimum.
This includes ANYONE in the Federal Government.
That is why God invented Life Insurance and Accident Insurance. Any bread winner who doesn't have it is negligent toward their own family.
Sometimes there are accidents. I suspect that this was one. Yet there are sharks in the waters in Minnesota. These law firms are ambulance chasers of the worst kind.
However, the responsibility for the insurance should fall on those who caused the injury. As a fallback, the injured should have insurance.
Luke 19:8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, "Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount." 9 Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save what was lost."
6:2
“If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the Lord by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him,
6:3
or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do—
6:4
when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found,
6:5
or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.
where was the humorous part?
The only reason congress authorized huge payments to 9/11 families was so that they would not sue the airlines. The bill was passed because of pressure from the airlines. IIRC the payments were based on the future lifetime earnings of the person who died.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
The tax payers paid off with regard to potential life-time earnings, but, as I understand, there were considerable more, private and non-private funds, added to the mix providing totally unreasonable payments, not only to the surviving immediate family, but also extended families.
Like I said, the immediate, dependent family suffering such loss needed some sort of compensation - but from the tax-payer, for other than immediate under-the-roof dependents - well that’s where I do have questions.
Please help me understand the notion that one should not be responsible for one's own negligence? I mean that seriously. I see that thinking in many of the threads on this kind of subject.
There are valid reasons why the Law Firm would seek on order such as this. One, there might not be a cause of action at all. Just because the bridge fell does not automatically mean someone was negligent. If the can determine that it was not foreseeable, then they can advise their client to accept it as an unfortunate accident and take the settlement offer.
Two, I don't know what the statute of limitations in MN is, but I do know that NTSB investigations can take a long time to reach conclusions. If the SOL is one year to bring a suit, and the results are announced 13 months later, finding that the State had notice that a dangerous collapse was likely yet did nothing, shouldn't the injured have recourse against the State?
I could go one, but it would be pointless.
sorry about the multiple entries, I thought the screen locked up and the first one had not gone. I’m still an infant with these machines.
It would be an interesting research project to investigate if the partners of this firm contributed to any presidential candidates.
There were so many lawyers walking through the airport that they were forced to put sand on the floor so folks wouldn’t slip on the grease.
I wonder if that pompous prick has channeled any dead babies lately?
Please help me understand the notion that one should not purchase life insurance to care for your familiy in the event you are in an accident which may or may not be caused by someone else?
There are valid reasons why the Law Firm would seek on order such as this.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
If the SOL is one year to bring a suit, and the results are announced 13 months later, finding that the State had notice that a dangerous collapse was likely yet did nothing, shouldn't the injured have recourse against the State?
The statute of limitations for fraudulent concealment is at least three years from the date of the discovery of the fraud.
AFAIK, this law firm does not even have a client yet. They are looking for liabilty and when they find it they will go fishing for clients.
Most likely to those who do not get a lawyer, the property liability carrier for whoever is the owner of the bridge (the state or federal government) will offer a fair settlement offer regardless of any finding of negligence.
I just can't stand these ambulance chasing law firms.
I could go one, but it would be pointless.
Then don't.
Several years ago a friend was telling of an accident in which he was an uninjured victim but several personal injuries were involved. When he arrived home to call his insurance company, there were three messages from one local and two out-of-state law firms to call them immediately.
What’s that tell you??
Several years ago a friend was telling of an accident in which he was an uninjured victim but several personal injuries were involved. When he arrived home to call his insurance company, there were three messages from one local and two out-of-state law firms to call them immediately.
What’s that tell you??
Let me get this straight: If you have a 10 year old child playing in your front yard, and a three time convicted drunk driver, again driving drunk, runs over your kid and turns him into a vegetable for life, it is YOUR responsibility to have insured against that risk? You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.
What’s that tell you?”
That there are scummy lawyers coming out of the woodwork.Years ago I was involved in a minor traffic accident.Guy hit me from behind while I was waiting for a light to go green.No injury to either one of us.Next day at work one of our clients who is a personal injury attorny comes up to me and says,”I have a doctor for you to see right away,he’ll fit you with a neck brace and I’ll get you at least 50k.”I told him thanks but no thanks,I’ll wait until I’m REALLY hurt before sueing anybody.
A three time convicted drunk driver will not have ANY insurance and will likely have no assets.
So the answer is yes!. If you wish to get compensated for such an accident then you should have insurance for that situation.
I thought you said it was "pointless" to go on.
You live in a strange world where people should be free from liability for their acts.
Hardly. But I live in California where at least 30% of the drivers are uninsured and 30% of the contractors are probably unisured or underinsured. So if I am going to make sure that my family is taken care of in the event of someone else's negligence, then I am going to have to make sure I have adequate insurance to cover any such unfortunate event.
I take it from your responses that you think that other people should be responsible for caring for your family in the event that they do something stupid and kill you. But what if they have limited insurance or no insurance at all? What if the policy limit is $15,000. Is that going to feed your family for the next 20 years?
One, we should all be more respectful. There could be a future John Edwards in that law firm underwater research group, and if somebody is taking names on who is posting what, well just be careful.
Two, being an American, I am naturally suspicious of government, so having a second set of eyes observing what could have gone wrong to cause this is not always a bad deal. Especially if this avoids a cover-up from some bureaucrat anxious to look good, or at least not look bad.
Three, oh, there ain't no three. I just feel bad about thinking that maybe trial lawyers actually add value to society. Maybe I need to go watch some Head-On commercials to get my sense of values back.
no, thats why you sue them so you can garnish their wages to recover what you actually lost. And a $15,000 injury limit is laughable, I doubt that such a policy even exists.
I'm also a bit suspect of the "three messages on the answering machine" story (i know it was a different poster). Most states have strict ethical restrictions regarding soliciting accident victims immediately after the event. And even if they were unethical enough to violate the rules of professional conduct, I doubt they would be stupid enough to leave a message as proof. Maybe your state doesn't have ethics rules, mine does. it also has much stricter rules on lawsuits than CA as well.
Perhaps the problem lies with the laws of CA, rather than the lawyers that apply them?
“The wave of the future, apparently. There’s been talk in Virginia of using taxpayer funds to compensate families and victims of the shootings at Virginia Tech.”
Odd, why have we forgotten Rep. Davy Crockett’s discussion with Horatio Bunce?
Congress can’t do charity. One upon a time, all citizens knew that.
that destruction of the evidence and post-haste bulldozing of the scene...
is par for the course...
(See Waco and OKC...)
Trial Lawyer Report on Hurricane Katrina Called Self-Serving Fiction by Insurance Groups
A recently released report by a plaintiffs’ attorneys group ignores the facts about insurance companies’ response to Hurricane Katrina in a deliberate effort to pad the pockets of the lawsuit industry by drumming up litigation and high jury verdicts, according to a consortium of insurance groups.
“The trial bar, hiding behind the name of the American Association for Justice, is using the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina to manipulate American consumers by spinning a fictional tale that comes straight from the pages of a John Grisham novel,” said Carl Parks, senior vice president for Government Affairs, at the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC). “The facts tell a different story, and facts are stubborn things.”
Hurricane Katrina generated the largest loss in the history of the insurance industry—1.7 million claims resulting in $40.6 billion in insured damage, said Dr. Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). In addition, flooding from the storm surge and the ensuing failure of the aging New Orleans levee system cost the National Flood Insurance Program more than $16 billion.
Dr. Hartwig said Katrina’s 2005 companions, hurricanes Rita and Wilma produced another 1.4 million claims and $15.3 billion in damage. And the unprecedented four-storm season of 2004 resulted in an additional 2.5 million claims and $25 billion in damage.
Dr. Hartwig reported that two years after Katrina made landfall, approximately 99 percent of homeowners insurance claims, including those in hard-hit Louisiana and Mississippi, have been settled. In Louisiana, approximately 688,000 homeowners claims, totaling $10.8 billion, have been settled. In Mississippi, more than 350,000 homeowners claims, totaling $5.4 billion, have been settled. “Effectively all of the nearly 350,000 claims from damaged vehicles, totaling $2.2 billion, have been settled,” he said.
In Louisiana, only 537 out of more than 1,000 suits filed in U.S. District Court remain on the docket. The state-sponsored mediation program in Mississippi has settled 3,034 of 3,687 cases in that state.
Trial bar led challenges to insurance policy contract language, such as the exclusion of flood coverage in homeowners policies, have been rebuffed by federal courts in Louisiana and Mississippi.
“The trial bar’s defeats in the courts are behind its concerted effort to get the media to focus on the small number of disputed claims, creating the false impression that insurers turned their backs on large numbers of Gulf Coast consumers,” said Joseph Annotti, senior vice president – Public Affairs, of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI).
Annotti noted that while the most significant lawsuits failed in the courts, the litigation succeeded in creating uncertainty about the validity of insurance contracts. This level of uncertainty helped to further destabilize insurance markets in the region, leading, in part, to higher rates and the unwillingness of some insurers to sell coverage in coastal areas.
Industry representatives pointed out that the visibly slow progress in rebuilding some Gulf Coast communities, most notably New Orleans, is due to the tremendous damage the storm did to municipal infrastructures (roads, waterways, and railways, water systems, electrical systems, schools and hospitals), to delays in the allocation and distribution of government funds, and to the tremendous dislocation of large segments of the population in the region—not to the lack of insurance dollars.
“There has been very little reporting on the fact that Gulf Coast banks are swollen with payments from insurance settlements and that the majority of the rebuilding efforts in the region are fueled by those claims payments,” said Gov. Marc Racicot, president of the American Insurance Association (AIA).
“Those homeowners and business owners who took prudent steps to adequately insure their property before the storm, particularly the purchase of flood insurance from the federal government, had the financial resources to rebuild in the Gulf Coast or to relocate,” said Racicot. “Unfortunately, the dramatic demographic shift in the Gulf Coast has resulted in many businesses thinking twice before re-opening in the same location and many citizens seeking areas with better schools and public services.”
The insurance industry representatives pointed out that the financial strength of the industry prior to Hurricane Katrina allowed companies to pay all covered claims promptly.
With the increased likelihood that stronger and more frequent storms will hit the U.S. in the coming years, a financially healthy insurance industry is a key component in protecting individuals and the U.S. economy from future natural disasters.
http://www.namic.org/newsreleases07/070829nr1.asp?utm_source=weekly&utm_medium=email
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.