How about Stop Youth Addiction v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 17 Cal. 4th 553 (1998) in which a plaintiffs' lawyer formed a corporation (Stop Youth Addiction, Inc.) and installed his mother as the President and sole shareholder?
The newly-formed corporation then sued thousands of convenience stores under California's Unfair Competition Law 17200, claiming that the stores illegally sold cigarettes to minors.
While some of the stores may have violated the law by selling cigarettes to minors, the plaintiff had no injury of which to complain. The lawsuit was nothing more than a vehicle to generate attorneys' fees for the plaintiffs' lawyer -- a fact admitted by his mother, err . . . the president of the company -- in her deposition.
Although the California Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings allowing this monstrosity of a lawsuit to proceed, Janice Rogers Brown dissented, writing, "the majority chooses to speed us along the path to perdition, genially opting for the worst of all possible legal worlds: abuse of process . . . exotortionate nuisance lawsuits, confusion, duplication of litigation resources and uncertain finality."
Eventually, the loophole in UCL 17200 had to be closed by referendum through Propsition 64.
Those types of situations get dealt with under the current system. The Trevor Law Group and all of its attorneys were disbarred for similar practices. My point is that after 8 years in practice, having seen hundreds and hundreds of cases, the type of quote above is based on ignorance rather than fact. It's massively exaggerated, and its exactly the type of thing that the insurance companies love to push.