- 
Posted on 05/21/2020 4:40:55 PM PDT by street_lawyer
The COVID Can Go To Suit. Or Can It?
The COVID Can Go To Suit, Or Can It? By: Frank J. Morelli, Esq. Contributor The one thing you will find that is bipartisan is lawyer bashing. The reason is that lawyers work on both sides of the isle. They defend rights. They attack rights. They make money ether way, and that is what everyone hates. They make money if they win or if they lose. But what most people don’t seem to comprehend is that so-called frivolous lawsuits are not filed by competent attorneys.
No, there are checks and balances already in place in the federal code and all state codes. The short story is that the looser is liable for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs in most cases that involve insurance, contracts, and those based on statutory rights. Yet there are pundits and politicians and even conservative websites that continue to warn, the COVID will make attorney’s rich and there will be millions of lawsuits against employers, restaurants, drug manufacturers. You name it. They can all go to suit.
A frivolous lawsuit is one that lacks any legal basis and is intended to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition. True, courts are hesitant to find that the suit is frivolous because they do not want to discourage anyone from filing a lawsuit in a meritorious case. Note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the attorney must certify that the complaint
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other
(Excerpt) Read more at badnewsjournal.com ...
The title says it is about a Covid-19 lawsuit. The article is about nuisance lawsuits. Is there a Covid-19 lawsuit or not?
Yeah you’d think if someone was going to pimp their own blog they’d go to the trouble of including an excerpt that allowed the reader to follow what’s going on.
-
Both sides of the ISLE?
The one that Gilligan, Skipper, MaryAnn, Ginger, The Professor and the Howells were stranded on?
Sheesh...
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation
Yeah, like any of the ambulance chasers are abiding by that
I think what Morelli is sayin is that to recover for contracting the COVID one must prove negligence. COFID is an act of God and I think this is immune from lawsuits
If they file suit and lose they are subject to the penalty for filing a frivolous lawsuit as a non-ambulance chaser. I think the point is that no one can actually file a totally bogus lawsuit. I think Morelli did a fair job of explaining.
Not the ambulance chasers. They are usually on contengency. But as a respectable trial attorney who usually did insurance defense told me one time, "They keep the rest of us in business"
Aisle? You win the prize for spelling How about you tell us what the article is about?
I disagree. I think there are plenty of courts in this country that would side against an employer by claiming that the employer could keep employees from contracting the virus.
Yes, I know that it could not be properly proven where the virus was contracted, but I don’t see that stopping some courts or juries.
Just the fear of lawsuits is going to hamper companies and cost them in unnecessary CYA measures.
The COVID Can Go To Suit, Or Can It?
By: Frank J. Morelli, Esq. Contributor
The one thing you will find that is bipartisan is lawyer bashing. The reason is that lawyers work on both sides of the aisle. They defend rights. They attack rights. They make money ether way, and that is what everyone hates. They make money if they win or if they lose. But what most people don’t seem to comprehend is that so-called frivolous lawsuits are not filed by competent attorneys.
No, there are checks and balances already in place in the federal code and all state codes. The short story is that the looser is liable for damages, attorney’s fees, and costs in most cases that involve insurance, contracts, and those based on statutory rights. Yet there are pundits and politicians and even conservative websites that continue to warn, the COVID will make attorney’s rich and there will be millions of lawsuits against employers, restaurants, drug manufacturers. You name it. They can all go to suit.
A frivolous lawsuit is one that lacks any legal basis and is intended to harass, delay, or embarrass the opposition. True, courts are hesitant to find that the suit is frivolous because they do not want to discourage anyone from filing a lawsuit in a meritorious case. Note that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the attorney must certify that the complaint
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a non frivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of information.
The rule is a double edged sword. It apply to both parties. So let’s ignore the claims that attorneys are going to file lawsuits against restaurants claiming that a customer was infected with COVID while eating in the restaurant. Given that the COVID is invisible and ubiquitous, no competent attorney will take the case. There must be a nexus between the dinner stay and the infection. Not even Doctor Fauci could make that connection.
What about employers being sued by their employees? Yes it’s possible but the bar is very high. Generally an employee that is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits cannot sue the employer. In the event that the employer is reckless and as a result the employee is injured the employer may be liable in a court of law. Even if the employee is entitled to workers’ compensation benefits it will be an uphill battle to prove that the infection arose out of and in the course of employment. Once again the fact that the COVID is seemingly everywhere, the state of medical expertise is such that no doctor could possibly opine within a reasonable degree of medical probability that he knows the instance the COVID infected the employee. This is also true for anyone claiming to have been infected.
Now since there is no need for legislation, we continue to hear, read and see people calling for the government to prevent such lawsuits. At least one politician is calling for legislation similar to what he referred to as the SAFETY Act. To begin with that legislation has noting to do with negligence or workers’ compensation. It was passed to deal with instrumentalities that were designed to combat terrorism. And COVID, whatever it is it is something vastly different. The Safety Act provides manufacturers and services with some protection against lawsuits if and when the Department of Homeland Security issues a “certification” in which case damages are caped to the amount of insurance required. In other words the Safety Act has nothing to do with preventing lawsuits, it merely caps damages, much in the same way that damages are capped for negligence caused by hospitals.
We still have what’s left of our constitution and so we still have a right to seek a remedy in court. At least for the time being. And that’s the Bad News Journal’s position.
image2
Incorrect word use in the second sentence, followed by a sentence fragment. I much prefer reading literate writing.
Buh Bye
Don
Tell me what the point of the article was?
I disagree. I think there are plenty of courts in this country that would side against an employer by claiming that the employer could keep employees from contracting the virus.
Yes, I know that it could not be properly proven where the virus was contracted, but I don’t see that stopping some courts or juries.
Just the fear of lawsuits is going to hamper companies and cost them in unnecessary CYA measure
After many, many years of lawyering and thousands of cases and ten years on the bench, I can tell you that you are wrong. I understand why you are wrong because the media wants to destroy every vestige of democracy. The fact is that the case would likely never get to a jury,.
Not true, but if you are struck by a drunk driver and end up in a Wheelchair you might be pleased to know that there are “ambulance chasers”
Did you know the pejorative term was coined by the insurance industry?
Ambulance chasing is ambulance chasing.
Shooting a tort lawyer on the court house steps may not be murder. Such action may be a public service.
Roundup may cause cancer
Nobody’s immune until Congress gets its head out of its arse and legislates it.
WTH is Congress waiting for?!
Yeah, like any of the ambulance chasers are abiding by that
You have bought into the narrative created by the insurance companies. Insurance companies do not want to pay claims. Thank God for lawyers who are wiling to take a risk to make them pay.
Well let’s hope you’re right.
As a non-lawyer, just from reading the general news, I can’t seem to gin up much faith in the judicial system.
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.