Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Wow, pick an entertainer that has led an exemplary life. I like The Eagles’ music. I don’t hang out with them.
Lots of people do slimy things, most of them don’t make a living at it...
FWST: Player suing TCU once praised coaching, medical staff
- Thread starter TopFrog
- Start date
Wow, pick an entertainer that has led an exemplary life. I like The Eagles’ music. I don’t hang out with them.
Lots of people do slimy things, most of them don’t make a living at it...
Frog-in-law1995
Active Member
You seem to forget this when you talk about lawyers. Even the vast majority of plaintiff’s lawyers are very good people.
RollToad
Baylor is Trash.
Pure Purple
KMA
My family is (censor) deep in Corporate Attorneys. However, they don't chase ambulances or litigate. Does that count?
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
I have even known one or two. It’s the profession, not necessarily the people. When the idea is to make those harmed whole again gets bastardized by people who base their increased income on seeking the highest dollar amount for their clients it gets slimy. If you disagree with this then you would probably not have a problem codifying the tort system to set levels of recovery for listed injuries all the way to fatalities, right.
I have also had to suffer asshats like Joe Jamal and far too many like him.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
No, those guys work for a living...
YA
Active Member
The job of the attorney is to be an advocate for the client all in--so yes, PI attorneys seek the highest dollar amount for their clients as that is their ethical duty. Just like it is for criminal lawyers to seek the best outcome for their clients and family law for their clients. See advocacy, no matter how you personal feel about it, is not for you to judge on the other side of the aisle, but rather from the prospective of the client and ultimately the bar association.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
How is it ethical to seek the highest dollar? It would be ethical to make your client whole, not whole and then some so that you also profit as much as possible. That may be your idea of what ethical is, but profiting and ethics do not equate.
Ethical- moral, correct, virtuous, honorable, reputable, etc. Nowhere in there does it indicate that profiteering is a part of ethical.
In a best of all worlds the guilty pays the price. In your world the guilty seems to be the insurance companies. You are punishing the wrong party. You aren’t punishing the negligent party by gouging insurance companies or getting mad at them because they don’t to give you what you want. The honorable thing, the equitable thing, the ethical thing would be for the negligent to pay the price and abolish insurance. But I doubt there’d be as many of you since there only so many wealthy people causing torts worthy of your time.
netty2424
Full Member
One dead hooker and now we're supposed to hate them all? I'm not buyin' it.
YA
Active Member
Are you stupid? The insurance policy is there as a contract to defend the insured in case of a loss. The defendant in litigation is the named insured, not the insurance companies. Cannot even bring up the existence of insurance to the jury by law. So the jury awards damages against the named defendant. I would love to have named insurance companies defendants in 3rd party litigation.
The ethical rules state to be an advocate for the client. That does not means taking the low ball offer of insurance companies because you as a claims manager said this is all the computer says we can pay--a program created by the insurance companies.
Finally, the world as we know it would collapse without insurance and so would society because 99% of the world doesn't have attachable assets to satisfy the negligence actions of the world or in business disputes. But, then again you would not have had a job either if not for insurance companies and lawyers so I don't know why you complain all the time. Must have had some PI lawyer take your pride or ego at one point to be still harping on this issue with envy and resentment in retirement.
PurplFrawg
Administrator
Ah, but then there's the geriatric who is having a potential life ending shower of blood clots, winding up with a pulmonary embolism. A filter is inserted and he recovers, living several more years...certainly more than if he had not received immediate intervention. Then, due to the delicate nature of the filter, a piece breaks off and causes problems. There are any number of nationwide law firms on TV lining up to crucify the product and physician/hospital that gave this individual many more years on this earth than he would have had without it. In the same vein (pardon the pun), an individual at high risk for a stroke is prescribed "blood thinners" and he lives for years without incident. Then at some point years in the future, he suffers a bleeding incident such as a GI bleed or hemorrhagic stroke, at once again, there are the TV guys ready to sue.
I have never been sued so you can't use the "Must have had some PI lawyer take your pride or ego at one point to be still harping on this issue with envy and resentment in retirement." card. I just think there are cases which are filed when common sense should prevail and the legal beagles should tell the potential client, "Look, those products and devices saved or prolonged your life for many extra years. No one lives forever...it was just the result of old age and genetics." Those TV ads really make me mad.
I have never been sued so you can't use the "Must have had some PI lawyer take your pride or ego at one point to be still harping on this issue with envy and resentment in retirement." card. I just think there are cases which are filed when common sense should prevail and the legal beagles should tell the potential client, "Look, those products and devices saved or prolonged your life for many extra years. No one lives forever...it was just the result of old age and genetics." Those TV ads really make me mad.
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Well, I may be stupid but I am smart enough to know who the defendant is and who pays for that defense and any judgement. I have also been on enough juries to know that people know the negligent party is is there in name only and that jurors know there is a deep pocket available and have worked on trials where when the jurors were polled after a trial have pointed to the insurance when asked how they arrived at their award.
I sure hope you keep your cool better in a court room because it sure is easy to yank your chain and get you to start calling names.
You seem to try to link my employment to insurance all the time. I have done work for plaintiff and defense firms, not solely with insurance involved. I’ve worked with the EPA, manufacturers of snap rims for sure trucks, mediators, we 3M, Monsanto and any number of entities. I’m confident I’d have still scraped by without insurance companies.
Hey I understand nature doesn’t like a vacuum. Where there is a buck to be made there will always be someone there to fill it whether it’s me, pimps or lawyers...chain/yank.
You need to relax and not let people get to you so easy, you’ll linger.
So getting back to the crux of the link, you are rooting for KL to rip TCU and its carriers a new one?
Hoosierfrog
Tier 1
Even better are the class actions they advertise where only the law firms win and people collect $50 each.
YA
Active Member
Heck no I don’t want him to win. I want him to lose in summary judgment. His case makes me dislike my profession every time I read about it. It has no merit and cases like that make all lawyers look bad by association.
Last edited:
