Jury Duty

[Razgovory]

I've never been pulled over by a cop who was trying to be a dick about it.  Every time I've been pulled over I was in the wrong.  Except that time I had a spare tire on and I was trying to get home.

[Eddie Teach]

And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

Well, that's true systemically, but not so much for a single law suit. They still have to have competitive rates.

[DGuller]

And so are their policyholders, who are going to share the losses one way or another.  Any insurance fraud, as well as frivolous lawsuits, victimize the honest policyholders.

Well, that's true systemically, but not so much for a single law suit. They still have to have competitive rates.

Of course, you don't set rates to recoup past losses, you set rates given what you expect to pay out in the future.  However, every frivolous lawsuit increases the insurance company's expectation of future frivolous lawsuits, and they have to price for that.

[Caliga]

Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit?

[DGuller]

Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit?

Is it a criminal trial or a civil trial?

[Caliga]

Civil... And this might shock you but anybody can sue anyone for any reason... without an insurance company's involvement

[DGuller]

Civil... And this might shock you but anybody can sue anyone for any reason... without an insurance company's involvement

But there is also a possibility that insurance company is involved, but that fact is not advertised for obvious reasons.  The insurance company lawyer may simply appear to be a lawyer hired by the defendant.

[Caliga]

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception...

[ulmont]

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception...

Insurance companies have an...impression...that juries are more likely to award damages if they know the defendant will just be handing the judgment off to the insurance company, so often try to exclude that evidence.

The Federal Rules of Evidence - along with states that roughly parallel the FRE, such as Tennessee - generally bar the introduction of the existence of an insurance policy:

Rule 411. Liability Insurance

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether the person acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

[DGuller]

I'm not sure I understand why anyone would want to deceive the jury in that manner, or why the judge would allow such a deception...

If the jury knows that the defendant has liability insurance, they would conceivably be more likely to award damages, or more damages.  They may figure that the poor little guy who's a plaintiff would need the money more than than the big, mean insurance company. 

Apart from the fact that it's not fair to insurance companies, it's also not fair to defendants.  Their cases should be judged on the facts of the case, not on whether they have a liability insurance.

[Barrister]

Would you idiots stop yapping about insurance companies pl0x?  When did I ever say that an insurance company was even involved in this suit?

You'd be surprised.  Insurance companies rarely are involved in lawsuits under their own names - instead they act on behalf of their insureds.  In fact I would bet you one billion imaginary dollars that an insurance company is involved in your case, even without me knowing anything about it.

And I speak from some experience - I started out doing insurance defence.  And unless it is a denial of coverage, the insurer is never mentioned in the style of cause.

[DGuller]

In fact, IMO, the biggest advantage for a typical individual of having a liability insurance is the fact that you'll be provided with a lawyer, who is by law required to defend you as if his company is on the hook for the very last dollar of the judgment.  That insures you not only against being bankrupted in a lawsuit, but also insures you against being legally harassed (since merely legally defending yourself can in itself bankrupt you).

[Caliga]

I concede that all of the above is possible, but when I can finally speak about the case I suspect you all will come to believe that insurance company involvement is at best tangential.  I would guess there was such involvement initially, but given who is doing the suing I don't think they would be involved any longer.

[Caliga]

Gentlemen, I have reached: a verdict. 

However, the jury only deliberated for like 30 minutes, which I'm rather ashamed of.  I agree with the verdict though, so I guess that's all that really matters.

[ulmont]

However, the jury only deliberated for like 30 minutes, which I'm rather ashamed of.  I agree with the verdict though, so I guess that's all that really matters.

Well, you were all there for the trial, so if you guys were all paying attention, I'd think you'd all have the verdict when you got into the deliberation room?