This isn’t a matter of cost-of-living so much as it is a threat to all businesses. Yes, I believe this is one example where we absolutely need federal reform. It’s like I was suggesting with South Carolina. If that’s the only state with a law that provides a loophole for a tort lawyer, it allows a class-action suit to be filed on behalf of people from all states throughout the nation. Or it allows someone who is only tangentially affected in South Carolina to file suit for damages suffered in Oklahoma. Venue shopping is a real issue in this country.
And it’s something that affects us at a national level. Our businesses are paying enormous insurance premiums to fend off lawsuits. This isn’t about handing businesses a check. It’s about giving them a break. By limiting non-economic damages in tort cases, you not only diminish insurance premiums, but you also diminish the number of fraudulent lawsuits by diminishing expected payouts.
In every state where tort reform has been enacted, the cost of medical malpractice insurance has declined or remained steady (as compared to the sky-rocketing premiums paid throughout the rest of the country). This works well for medical claims in states that have been able to pass tort reform, but physicians are generally state-certified and insurance providers are often state-limited.
Another tort reform badly needed is limiting joint and several liability. And here is a perfect example of where national tort reform is needed. Company A produces a product that injures someone. But company B makes a component of this product. Company B has very deep pockets, and so the injured individual shops for a venue (i.e. a state) that does not have proportionate liability but has joint and several liability. Company B may at best have very minor involvement in process that caused the injury to the plaintiff, but they may be just as liable in a state where joint and several liability is practiced. If that product is sold in such a state, guess where that lawsuit is going to be filed? Obviously in the state where both pockets are equally accessible.
You need to be careful with this. One way of protecting the little guy is to enact a “loser pays” system as is seen in Britain. That way, you don’t have corporations endlessly holding up lawsuits, just waiting to bankrupt the little guy in legal fees.
It should be noted that the United States is the most litigious society on earth. This is greatly detrimental to our businesses as we try to compete with corporations in Asia. And we’re losing right now. Our levels of corportate taxation and insurance premiums are absolutely higher than what you see abroad. It’s killing us.
And I actually agree with you. Tort reform is best done at the state level. But we need to have federal groundwork to address the issues of venue shopping, etc..
I think Romney is particularly strong in this area:
http://mitt-tv.mittromney.com/?showid=47261
And I don’t mean to make this a Romney-Thompson fight. I like Thompson. Tort reform is just one area where I prefer Romney.
I am a strong supporter of tort reform, however, I oppose any and all attempts at federal tort reform legislation. We may be tort hell, but thats what our legislature wants. The way to fix it is to elect a better legislature, not to pass a national law.
I think it is dangerous that we have so many people who are willing to pass national legislation for an idea “conservative” in nature. The bedrock principle of the party is supposed to be state’s rights.