POLITICS: Bush Pushes to Limit Class-Action Suits

Unrelated as the law would not effect existing cases.

Originally posted by FredT
Unrelated as the law would not effect existing cases.

Related because politics affects legal rulings, despite the fact that it shouldn't happen. ...The US Justice department "urged the federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit." Meaning it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Meaning it's a political hot potato and the New York judged was politely asked to take the flack for the decision.


.

Originally posted by soficrow
The US Justice department "urged the federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit." Meaning it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Meaning it's a political hot potato and the New York judged was politely asked to take the flack for the decision.

The U.S. Justice department defends the U.S. in these types of actions so what do you expect them to do sit around and wait or defend the people? :shk: Just like any other legal defencewhat do you expect the department to do?? Really I am amazed at your ability to turn anything into a anti-American/anti Bush rant

Also, if the judge was rolling over, then why go to the trouble of articulating a 233 page opinion?

And really now, once again your desire to blame all evils on the U.S. or Bush has caused you to lose sight of the facts:

Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the courts of appeals and the district courts, and judges of the Court of International Trade, are appointed under Article III of the Constitution by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. Article III judges are appointed for life, and they can only be removed through the impeachment process. Although there are no special qualifications to become a judge of these courts, those who are nominated are typically very accomplished private or government attorneys, judges in state courts, magistrate judges or bankruptcy judges, or law professors. The judiciary plays no role in the nomination or confirmation process.
www.uscourts.gov...

This Judge has a lifetime appointment, So what political pressure could be brought to bear here?

And more to the point, he was a Lyndon Johnson appointment :shk:

[edit on 3/10/05 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by soficrow
The US Justice department "urged the federal judge to dismiss the lawsuit." Meaning it wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Meaning it's a political hot potato and the New York judged was politely asked to take the flack for the decision.

The U.S. Justice department defends the U.S. in these types of actions so what do you expect them to do sit around and wait or defend the people? :shk:

Yet you're saying that these things occur in a vaccuum? Unrelated to the political context?

J Really I am amazed at your ability to turn anything into a anti-American/anti Bush rant

I fail to see how this comment was an anti-American/anti Bush rant. Really, I do.

...If you like, we could talk about trickle down effects, political climates and the like..

Also, if the judge was rolling over, then why go to the trouble of articulating a 233 page opinion?

That's fairly routine, especially when the situation calls for some serious butt covering.


.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by soficrow]

Joe, and others interested in the concept of "legal precedents"...


Seems to me that this 'Agent Orange' ruling could apply as a precedent to prevent soldiers from suing for depleted uranium (DU) poisoning, as one example - and certainly the countries that have been contaminated.

The legal positioning involves the victims suing the corporations who manufactured the weapons - in turn, the corporations sue the US government for purchasing and using the weapons, and say the government is liable. ...Obviously, no one wants this getting anywhere near a jury.

Do we have any lawyers here who can comment more specifically?


.

I haven't read the ruling as yet- too long for quick look
Good catch!

As to you (sofi) and FredT butting heads- I LOVE IT

(My two favorite reporters.)

Lyndon Johnson appointee- political pressure- lifetime appointment- etc. Does any of this really matter? Sure, the potential pressure matters. The rest is smoke and mirrors on why it 'shouldn't' matter.

Federal Judges have lots of things and people they are interested in. This judge may also or alternatively be just a thorough judge that sees an important issue he doesn't want overturned. I will comment on his ruling after reading it (thanks for the link).

These folks (Vietnamese) would seem to have a potential case, however as with all war related things 'bright lines' sometimes must be drawn. While I personally feel for them there was a war type situation going on. It can be argued from until doomsday (four days from now ) that the U.S. was or was not at war. This Judge (again without reading his ruling first) apparently went to great lengths to justify his ruling.

Imagine the law suits over Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Gulf 1, Korea, Gulf II, Genada- the list is long. A line (barrier) exists and courts decide what it is.
.

.

Agent Orange lawsuit by Vietnamese.

Federal substantive law is supreme (page 13 and 17) including Nuremburg Trials.
Government Contractor defense not applicable (page 14).

Page 17 at #3 is a key element. Prior to 1975 Agent Orange was not illegal. Vietnamese had no rights under international law for prior to 1975 use. No internal Vietnamese law provided any door for international law.

Hercules Inc. v. United States, No. 94-818 (U.S. 03/04/1996)
Before the judgment was entered, however, the case was transferred to Chief Judge Weinstein, who withdrew Judge Pratt's opinion, ruled that the viability of the Government contractor defense could not be determined before trial, and reinstated petitioners as defendants. See In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, 597 F. Supp. 740, 753 (EDNY 1984).

This Judge (Weinstein) has been around a long time and very involved in Agent Orange. If there had been a legal way within this law suit to award to the Vietnzmese he would have done it.

Page 233

no basis . . . under the domestic law of any nation or state or under any form of international law . . . dismissed . . . no costs . . .

After about page 20 until around page 230 lots of background and information are given. The real 'crux' is that no legal door exists for these claims.

page of 2nd Cir. Agent Orange related documents.

Don't get lost in these documents. They range from sexual harassment to race discrimination to denial of legal fees for Holocaust Survivors AFTER they got paid. Lots of 'wow' stuff here that doesn't apply to the 'case at bar.'

VA agent orange propaganda page.
.

.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

This Judge (Weinstein) has been around a long time and very involved in Agent Orange. If there had been a legal way within this law suit to award to the Vietnzmese he would have done it.

Absolutely excellent work, Joe.

Two questions:

1. Can this case be used as a precedent to block future liability lawsuits regarding the use of radiation or other poisons in war situations?

2. If not, did Weinstein write his ruling to ensure that it could not be (speculation required)?


Thanks.

A very famous man said it best about 500 years ago.."Kill all the lawyers".

Originally posted by DrHoracid
A very famous man said it best about 500 years ago.."Kill all the lawyers".

I would normally agree. Unfortunately, the legal system is all that's left ordinary people to protect democracy and civil rights. So until the inequities are corrected, I say let the lawyers live.


.

Originally posted by soficrow

Two questions:

1. Can this case be used as a precedent to block future liability lawsuits regarding the use of radiation or other poisons in war situations?

2. If not, did Weinstein write his ruling to ensure that it could not be (speculation required)?

Wished I could give you a definite yes or no but can't. (*2, see the bottom)

Generally precedential cases appear at the appeallate level.

O.K.- that's clear. Now the mud.

Some few cases are so well 'reasoned' that they become precedents by being cited (referred to) over and over again. Not all precedents are good. Some as in a Supreme Court case (Feres) the precendential value is negative because 'lower Courts' routinely bash the case.

Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States, 431 U.S. 666 (1977). That case held (in light of the Feres doctrine providing the Government with immunity from armed services personnel tort suits) that Government contractors, whom armed services personnel had sued in tort, could not, in turn, sue the Government for indemnification. Otherwise a soldier, unable (given Feres) to sue the Government for injury caused, say, by a defective rifle, would sue the rifle manufacturer instead, and the rifle manufacturer would then sue the Government for indemnity, thereby, in a sense, circumventing the immunity that Feres promised the Government.

Ferese is cited hundreds of times. Here is just an example of the cases. I have 'hot-linked' Hercules because it is so important. All can be accessed here.
1. FindLaw: HERCULES INC. v. UNITED STATES, ___ U.S. ___ (1996)

2. FindLaw: SAUDI ARABIA v. NELSON, 507 U.S. 349 (1993)

3. FindLaw: BOYLE v. UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP., 487 U.S. 500 (1988)

4. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. STANLEY, 483 U.S. 669 (1987)

5. FindLaw: WELCH v. TEXAS HIGHWAYS & PUBLIC TRANSP. DEPT., 483 U.S. 468 (1987)

6. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. JOHNSON, 481 U.S. 681 (1987)

7. FindLaw: UNITED STATES v. SHEARER, 473 U.S. 52 (1985)

8. FindLaw: KOSAK v. UNITED STATES, 465 U.S. 848 (1984)

9. FindLaw: CHAPPELL v. WALLACE, 462 U.S. 296 (1983)

10. FindLaw: LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 460 U.S. 190 (1983)


Here is an example of Weinstein being cited about Feres by the Supreme Court.

Feres was wrongly decided and heartily deserves the "widespread, almost universal criticism" it has received. In re "Agent Orange" Page 701] Product Liability Litigation, 580 F.Supp. 1242, 1246 (EDNY), appeal dism'd, 745 F.2d 161 (CA2 1984).*fn*

II

The Feres Court claimed its decision was necessary to make "the entire statutory system of remedies against the Government . . . a workable, consistent and equitable whole."340 U.S., at 139. I am unable to find such beauty in what we have wrought. Consider the following hypothetical (similar to one presented by Judge Weinstein in In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, supra, at 1252): ''A serviceman is told by his superior officer to deliver some papers to the local United States Courthouse. As he nears his destination, a wheel on his Government vehicle breaks, causing the vehicle to injure him, his daughter (whose class happens to be touring the courthouse that day), and a United States marshal on duty. Under our case law and federal statutes, the serviceman may not sue the Government (Feres) ; the guard may not sue the Government (because of the exclusivity provision of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA),

U. S. C. § 8116); the daughter may not sue the Government for the loss of her father's companionship (Feres), but may sue the Government for her own injuries (FTCA). The serviceman and the guard may sue the manufacturer of the vehicle, as may the daughter, both for her own injuries and for the loss of her father's companionship. The manufacturer may assert contributory negligence as a defense in any of the suits. Moreover, the manufacturer may implead the Government in the daughter's suit (United States v. Yellow Cab Co.,340 U.S. 543 (1951)) and in the guard's suit (Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 460 U.S. 190 (1983)), even though the guard was compensated under a statute that contains an exclusivity provision (FECA). But the manufacturer may not implead the Government in the serviceman's suit (Stencel Aero Engineering Corp. v. United States,431 U.S. 666 (1977)), even though the serviceman was compensated under a statute that does not contain an exclusivity provision (VBA).''

The point is not that all of these inconsistencies are attributable to Feres (though some of them assuredly are), but merely that bringing harmony to the law has hardly been the consequence of our ignoring what Congress wrote and imagining what it should have written. When confusion results from our applying the unambiguous text of a statute, it is at least a confusion validated by the free play of the democratic process, rather than what we have here: unauthorized rationalization gone wrong. We realized seven years too late that "there is no justification for this Court to read exemptions into the Act beyond those provided by Congress. If the Act is to be altered that is a function for the same body that adopted it." Rayonier, Inc. v. United States,352 U.S., at 320 (footnote omitted).

italics added

Weinstein is one of the 'heavy' thinkers. While he may not always be 'followed' he is widely read.

Here, in the above example, the SC admitted grudgingly that they had been wrong. They will go on for paragraph upon paragraph explaining why. As I read 'Vietnamese v. Agent Orange' there is no door. Vietnam had no laws that could be used to hop into the international legal system. Congress could (but won't) do some kind of bridge law or retroactivity link. The Holocaust lawsuits only came about because of years of public pressure. Without trying to sound racist I can't see this happening with the Vietnamese.

Holocaust is one of those few unique situations in human history that transcends generations. For a closer look at Agent Orange look to Bhopaul.

Union Carbide proposes $350 million as settlement for victims and families
Union Carbide proposes a settlement amount of $350 million that will generate a fund for Bhopal victims of between $500-600 million over 20 years. Plaintiff’s US attorneys endorse amount.

Agent Orange isn't over yet. Like Bhopaul and asbestos, if a door exists someone will find it. If judges such as Weinstein hear the case the Plaintiff's will win.

*Some Judges provide 'guides.' Weinstein provides the background studies and brilliant information. The case as reported will occupy thousands of hours to analyze- the court file (I imagine) will be gone through with some very fine combs.

I suspect the Vietnamese will appeal to settle a few 'what if' issues. I don't see Weinstein being overturned. These companies are very exposed and they know it. Lots of political pressure will be exerted to wright laws and choose judges in the next few years in the hopes of heading the Vietnamese off.

Well, that's my cut on it anyway
.

.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

I suspect the Vietnamese will appeal to settle a few 'what if' issues. I don't see Weinstein being overturned. These companies are very exposed and they know it. Lots of political pressure will be exerted to wright laws and choose judges in the next few years in the hopes of heading the Vietnamese off.

Well, that's my cut on it anyway

.

.

Excellent work. Thank you.

I need to read more of your references to get a better handle, but the mud is less muddy.

This issue of class action pitting corporations against government remains intriguing. IMO - they're one and the same, so legal resolution is unlikely to be forthcoming, especially in cases involving military action.

...Do you know anything about the proposed new international court? ...There is a thread here but I lost it. However, seems to me there is no legal venue for redress - even though there is clear culpability. ...?


.

Originally posted by soficrow
...Do you know anything about the proposed new international court? ...There is a thread here but I lost it. However, seems to me there is no legal venue for redress - even though there is clear culpability. ...?
.

(I was going to 'nuke' your last line too, but what the hay)

International court- so what? Not going to change much. The U.S. will Kyoto that idea as it has in the past.

(grandchild playing with icons )

Anyway, the U.S. will NOT sign up for any world court (unless . . . ). The U.S. is treaty hungry and always has been. Once a treaty is signed guess what-> NO Constitutional guarantees! (actually very, very limited)

NAFTA, etc. prove the treaty route. Presidents and congress (both houses) love treaties. This is one reason the league of nations treaties were never signed by the U.S. Europe had too much say in the League.

The U.S. already an international court member (depends on definitions)

The U.S. belongs to many 'world courts.' Some have interesting names and some are obscure. None the less they are recognized legal bodies having varying reach.

Here's an interesting article:

World Court supersede national sovereignty, even of countries refusing to ratify

Riiiight. Ain't happening. Smoke and mirrors.

The court, a permanent tribunal to prosecute "crimes against humanity," strides onto the world stage without the ratification of the United States. Deemed by some as a grave threat to national sovereignty, the United States has lodged strenuous objections to the ICC.

You think Britain would allow one of the Royals to be hauled away to Borneo for rape or something? Nope. It sounds good until some powerful nation says NO.

Besides, this is criminal anyway and the U.S. won't sign. The Vietnamese (or others) don't need criminal prosecution, they need a civil ($$$) avenue.

The UN, with its VETO power gives the U.S. and a few others unparalleled power. Back to where you seem to be coming from sofi

'culpability'? By who?

Why didn't the Vietnamese sue their government?

Anyway, who flew the deliveries? Was it U.S. military exclusively? How about civilian contractors? How about poisoning? Was the risk known?

Could be a way but I don't know.
.

.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

Once a treaty is signed guess what-> NO Constitutional guarantees! (actually very, very limited)

WHOA! Can you explain please?

Back to where you seem to be coming from sofi

'culpability'? By who?

In general - am looking at legal avenues to prevent the introduction of poisons and other contamination into the environment - via threat of liability if that's the only way.

The Agent Orange case seems to me directly parallel to depleted uranium poisoning from weapons.

...Am also concerned with non-military 'transgressions.' ...I am fishing for info and picking your brain. Have a basic spotty grounding in the issues - need more info. Will shuffle and repackage at will.


.

Originally posted by soficrow

Originally posted by JoeDoaks
Once a treaty is signed guess what-> NO Constitutional guarantees! (actually very, very limited)

WHOA! Can you explain please?

Ur puttin me on, right?

Every school child knows this (don't they?)

Sad, huh? Heehee.

MOST people do not know what the real power to a treaty is. The real power is what laws then govern the treaty.( U.S. treaties in force

Let me give you some examples:
U.S. treaties
The classic formulation of this principle may be found in the remarks of Charles Evans Hughes
before the American Society of International Law:

"I think it is perfectly idle to consider that the Supreme Court would even hold
that any treaty made in a constitutional manner in relation to the external
concerns of the nation is beyond the power or the sovereignty of the Untied States
or invalid under the Constitution of the United States where no express
prohibition of the Constitution has been violated . . . The [treaty-making] power is
to deal with foreign nations with regard to mattes of international concern."

1929 Proc. Am. Soc'y Int'l L. 194 (1929).
emphasis added

So, let's look at the Geneva Convention
Now it is NOT called a treaty but is it one?
Simple answer- yes.

MOST (I'll bet 90+%) people really don't know what this treaty is about. Many have a vague idea that it deals with warfare in some way, but beyond that they are clueless.

'GENEVA' is commonly called THE LAWS OF WAR(best page). Were you as shocked as other people when U.S. officials stated over and over again that 'Amerika” did NOT consider this person or that person protected under the Geneva Convention?

Sure you were. The average person couldn't grasp what was happening.
A prisoner in a war situation has NO (zero) rights?
Remember the American citizens that were arrested that also had NO rights?

How about this 'escape:'

For example, a civilian who shoots a soldier may be liable for murder while a soldier who shoots an enemy soldier and is captured may not be punished.

Or (remember the Afghani wedding party?)

the fourth Geneva Convention and the two Additional Protocols extend protections to civilians during war time.

* Civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
* There is to be no destruction of property unless justified by military necessity.
* Individuals or groups must not be deported, regardless of motive.
* Civilians must not be used as hostages.
* Civilians must not be subject to outrages upon personal dignity.
* Civilians must not be tortured, raped or enslaved.
* Civilians must not be subject to collective punishment and reprisals.
* Civilians must not receive differential treatment based on race, religion, nationality, or political allegiance.
* Warring parties must not use or develop biological or chemical weapons and must not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.

emphasis added

No biological weapons- always one of my favorites. The U.S. bio-stockpile is for use against who?

Between treaties dealing with specifics (ergo dealing with 'constitutional issues') that in and of themselves are not addressed in the Constitution and treaties that specify exactly what will or will not be allowed a maze of 'uncovered' area exists.

In this maze there is no legal protection available to anyone (citizen or not). Granted that citizens have a smaller amount of maze to contend with, it still exists.

Geneva Google page Don't get lost reading this stuff. You'll forget who authored it.

Another classic treaty:
(we'll leave NAFTA for another time)

Vienna Convention
The treaty of treaties. Really.
This treaty defines what other treaties mean.

SIGNED AT VIENNA 23 May 1969


ENTRY INTO FORCE: 27 January 1980

Article 4

Non-retroactivity of the present Convention

Without prejudice to the application of any rules set forth in the present
Convention to which treaties would be subject under international law
independently of the Convention, the Convention applies only to treaties
which are concluded by States after the entry into force of the present
Convention with regard to such States.

Classic 'out.' Extend or modify an existing treaty and it isn't affected.
Geneva human rights 1950

Some of the statements (pronouncements) are just plain stupid:

Article 8
Subsequent confirmation of an act
performed without authorization

An act relating to the conclusion of a treaty performed by a person who cannot be considered under article 7 as authorized to represent a State for that purpose is without legal effect unless afterwards confirmed by that State.

NFS – this has to be agreed to?!
Guess this means sofi and Fred can't obligate California and Canada to protect the Migratory Wild Pacific Humping Dualfaced Republocrat. Too bad, I was hoping this year, sigh.

Another 'side note:' United States and World Court mid-way down the page.

Anyway sofi, next time the subject of international anything legal comes up remember nothing is what it seems.

Treaty of friendship, commerce and navigation (Art. XXVIII) 1946
(China and U.S.)

From the 1960s onwards, nations friendly to the PRC, led by Albania, moved an annual resolution in the General Assembly to transfer China's seat at the UN from the ROC to the PRC. Every year the United States was able to assemble a majority of votes to block this resolution. But the admission of newly independent developing nations in the 1960s gradually turned the General Assembly from being Western-dominated to being dominated by countries sympathetic to Beijing. In addition, the desire of the Nixon administration to improve relations with Beijing to counterbalance the Soviet Union reduced American willingness to support the ROC.

As a result of these trends, on October 25, 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the General Assembly, withdrawing recognition of the ROC as the legitimate government of China, and recognising the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China.

Nixon was a realist.

Notable resolutions

* 1947
o Resolution 47/181: The partition of the British Mandate of Palestine.
* 1948
o Resolution 194: Recommends the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees.
* 1962
o Resolution 1761: Recommended sanctions against South Africa in response to the governments policy of apartheid.
* 1971
o Resolution 2758: Expelled the Republic of China and replaced it with the People's Republic of China. It also recognized the PRC as the sole legal authority of China. (See China's seat in the United Nations)
* 1975
o Resolution 3379: Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination; revoked by Resolution 4686.
* 1991
o Resolution 4686: revoked Resolution 3379.

All the anti-UN bashing that Neocons do is merely smoke and mirrors- here is a short list of some current U.S. uses of the UN.
.

.

Joe - your research is great - good to see. Sorry for taking so long getting back to this one. ...Seems to me that the layering of new legislation on top of existent treaties, along with the incorporation of government agencies and departments works to create a kind of super-corporate structure - that pretty much shafts ordinary people. Do I have that right?

Originally posted by soficrow
Joe - your research is great - good to see. Sorry for taking so long getting back to this one. ...Seems to me that the layering of new legislation on top of existent treaties, along with the incorporation of government agencies and departments works to create a kind of super-corporate structure - that pretty much shafts ordinary people. Do I have that right?

I 'think' so

Treaties are a bugga-boo. Much has been written about them and they are still gray-area for me.

The current mantra for the NWO is

The Hegelian dialectic

The system embodied within Hegel's philosophy of history is essentially that of a dialectical progression. To give a brief outline, this model begins with an existing element, or thesis, with contradictions inherent to its structure. These contradictions unwittingly create the thesis' direct opposite, or antithesis, bringing about a period of conflict between the two. The new element, or synthesis, that emerges from this conflict then discovers its own internal contradictions, and starts the process anew

Hegel

After reading a bit on this I have to admit it sounds neat- I don't buy it but it sounds neat.

This kind of thing is going on with class action suits. I can't understand the rationale given for clamping down on them. The harder it is for class complaints the more individual suits will occur- it is that simple. Smaller awards but more of them. This kind of defeats the entire BushCo plan, it seems to me.

I think BushCo just shot themselves in the foot.

stuff happens

Dealing with society is 'like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.'

Here, BushCorp thought they were saving big evil-doer companies when what has really happened is the same thing they did in Iraq- instead of a definite enemy they have created multiple smaller enemies. These smaller enemies will chew the big companies to pieces. No more escape hatch legislation for the Lloyds of the world.

Unless a treaty intervenes, Lloyds will get hauled into state court after state court and none of that Parliamentary legal maneuvering will save them. A hundred small awards of $10million (1,000,000,000 (BILLION)) each are going to hurt far worse than one large award of $200million. 5 times worse!
.

.

Originally posted by JoeDoaks

I can't understand the rationale given for clamping down on them. The harder it is for class complaints the more individual suits will occur- it is that simple. Smaller awards but more of them. This kind of defeats the entire BushCo plan, it seems to me.

Here, BushCorp thought they were saving big evil-doer companies when what has really happened is the same thing they did in Iraq- instead of a definite enemy they have created multiple smaller enemies. These smaller enemies will chew the big companies to pieces. No more escape hatch legislation for the Lloyds of the world.

Unless a treaty intervenes, Lloyds will get hauled into state court after state court and none of that Parliamentary legal maneuvering will save them. A hundred small awards of $10million (1,000,000,000 (BILLION)) each are going to hurt far worse than one large award of $200million. 5 times worse!
.

Back up here, kay? ...I thought class-action suits happened because people don't have $$$ to hire lawyers. ...The big guys would take class action because there was a good percentage and a huge profit.

...But you think there will be a rash of small suits? The logic sounds good, but is it realistic? I mean, most people in 'that position' are pretty maxed out by the time they realize what the problem is, and lawsuits need expert opinions, which cost, and more...


.

Originally posted by soficrow
...But you think there will be a rash of small suits? The logic sounds good, but is it realistic? I mean, most people in 'that position' are pretty maxed out by the time they realize what the problem is, and lawsuits need expert opinions, which cost, and more...

Class action= big firms, mega bux
also= many claimants

Class (action) can be mandated by courts- something left out of all the doom and gloom stories. Many times defendants want 'class' as well as the courts do. Look at 'big tobacco'- all those state Attorney Generals!

Insurance companies like individuals, even if there are more of them and the dollars end up higher. Easier to defend against and stall off.

Insurance (as an industry) is based on paying claims.

Re-read the Lloyds link- reinsurance is the name of the game.

Now with class-action hurdles raised all the drug companies are having things easier. 100 small suits are easier to deal with than 1 huge suit.

It may not make sense, but it works.

Reality is irrelavant, perception is everything.

Evening news won't care about a small suit- no adverse headlines.

.

.