Nestande Sentencing (Austin: hotels, theater, transportation)

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Insurance is based on risk and potential for property damage and injuries/death. If you don't think you should pay for the risk you present based on your driving record, age, sex, etc., then you are asking other people to subsidize those costs. No one is forced to drive and driving on other people's dime is not a right.

I'm trying to understand your line of thinking whereby it's really "OK" to raise the rates of our insurance because of what? I've lost the track here. Isn't that what you said in an earlier post, that if insurance rates have to go up then so much for the better? Maybe I'm not understanding what you said. Why would I want to pay higher insurance rates??? And when would I ever think that was a good thing??

Also, I'm not getting the logic about "asking other people to subsidize those costs." Maybe you could explain because we are clearly on two different trains here.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

Wrongful death cases don't require retainers.

Go tell an attorney you want to file a negligence suit against someone without liability insurance if you are so confident.

Absent Clive Bar's dram shop liability policy, this wasn't going anywhere.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

I have NEVER driven a car while impaired. Just because you have willfully committed a crime, doesn't mean the rest of us have.

Funny I don't remember admitting a thing. Rush to judge much?

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by scm53

Go tell an attorney you want to file a negligence suit against someone without liability insurance if you are so confident.

Absent Clive Bar's dram shop liability policy, this wasn't going anywhere.

I hold a JD, I know many tort lawyers. They don't require a retainer. I am sure she had auto insurance and if she has any assets they can go after those. I don't think the young lady is judgment proof.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

I'm trying to understand your line of thinking whereby it's really "OK" to raise the rates of our insurance because of what? I've lost the track here. Isn't that what you said in an earlier post, that if insurance rates have to go up then so much for the better? Maybe I'm not understanding what you said. Why would I want to pay higher insurance rates??? And when would I ever think that was a good thing??

Also, I'm not getting the logic about "asking other people to subsidize those costs." Maybe you could explain because we are clearly on two different trains here.

Maybe I should rephrase that........Auto insurance does not cover all of the damages done by cars every year. It covers most of the $300B (see below) or so but there are those who refuse to buy it (21% of drivers in Texas), those who buy too little, and then those who buy it but then avoid the law once involved in an accident. All of these and other situations are where the victim ends up with the bill, and since there is no special fund for victims it comes out of their hides.

AAA Study Finds Costs Associated With Traffic Crashes Are More than Three Times Greater than Congestion Costs | AAA NewsRoom

If the market reacts as it should Ms. Nestande, and those with records like her, should be paying more for coverage based on the risks and potential costs associated with their being behind the wheel. I did not mean you specifically should be paying more. The problem is when you start adding up the number of drivers in the "high risk" and "not legal" categories the numbers become huge, with very little progress being made to reduce their numbers.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

I hold a JD, I know many tort lawyers. They don't require a retainer. I am sure she had auto insurance and if she has any assets they can go after those. I don't think the young lady is judgment proof.

That wasn't the issue. The statement was a blanket statement that ANY wrongful death suit wouldn't require a retainer. I think we are in complete agreement - without attachable assets, chiefly auto liability coverage, there would almost certainly be a retainer. And even if there wasn't, if the liability limits were low enough, it would never see a trial because there wouldn't be enough recoverable assets to pay the huge leap in costs once it sees a jury.

She probably isn't judgement proof. But once you get past her insurance (which will be offered in a pre trial settlement), and her nine year old BMW, I doubt there is much there to pay fees. Trial, judgement, Chapter 7. Doesn't pay S&D's fees - and they know it.

Does Rule 167 come into play? I have a friend who does insurance company defense and he keeps talking about how that has introduced sanity into the Texas courts. Maybe you can explain it.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by scm53

That wasn't the issue. The statement was a blanket statement that ANY wrongful death suit wouldn't require a retainer. I think we are in complete agreement - without attachable assets, chiefly auto liability coverage, there would almost certainly be a retainer. And even if there wasn't, if the liability limits were low enough, it would never see a trial because there wouldn't be enough recoverable assets to pay the huge leap in costs once it sees a jury.

She probably isn't judgement proof. But once you get past her insurance (which will be offered in a pre trial settlement), and her nine year old BMW, I doubt there is much there to pay fees. Trial, judgement, Chapter 7. Doesn't pay S&D's fees - and they know it.

Does Rule 167 come into play? I have a friend who does insurance company defense and he keeps talking about how that has introduced sanity into the Texas courts. Maybe you can explain it.

I got my law degree in Washington state and never took the Texas bar. I don't practice. So I am not familiar with Rule 167 in practice, but as written it is just supposed to encourage early settlement in the case of REASONABLE settlement offers. Basically it means that if they make a 'reasonable' offer and it is declined then the declining party is on the hook for the other sides legal fees.

I imagine it would come into play for fender benders where you have PI attorneys and their clients asking for hundreds of thousands in pain and suffering when the insurance company is offering to replace the car and pay for immediate medical treatment and time lost from work. Wrongful death though, REASONABLE is subject to debate and a party can argue that a young woman had future life time earning capacity that would amount to over a million dollars. Can you argue that's not reasonable? They would have to look at actuarial tables, earning history, etc.

There are plenty of lawyers that would take this on contingency because even if they can't go after lawyers fees in TX, they can still get a cut of the overall settlement. Most lawsuit don't go all the way to a jury so I don't understand why you are hung up on that.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

Most lawsuit don't go all the way to a jury so I don't understand why you are hung up on that.

Because that is EXACTLY what I said - that this would never see a jury. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Jennibc]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because that is EXACTLY what I said - that this would never see a jury. Thank you for agreeing with me.

What I mean when I write most lawsuits don't go all the way to a jury, means most things settle, sometimes mid trial sometimes on the eve of trial. But what is your point about whether it going to a jury or not? It's still a lawsuit, it still gets filed, defense still has to answer and if doesn't get dismissed on summary judgment, which it wouldn't, they start discovery and it becomes one big massive litigation headache for everyone involved.

Like I said, just about any tort lawyer would be willing to take this without a retainer, because some money will be made from it. That's really what I was arguing is that there is no retainer required for a wrongful death suit.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Jennibc

Like I said, just about any tort lawyer would be willing to take this without a retainer, because some money will be made from it. That's really what I was arguing is that there is no retainer required for a wrongful death suit.

Which will be nothing more than the liability limits - which will be offered as a settlement.

The original argument was that the Griffin family will insist on a trial. No one will take that case, after a settlement offer, without a retainer. You can't get blood out of a turnip.