Welcome to the mess

31

be that insurance was used for the
reason it is intended to be used-
protect individuals against major
losses.

Now, however, an idea called
"psychology of entitlement" has
gained almost runaway momentum.
As it applies to insurance, this idea
holds that everyone is entitled to insur-
ance on everything at an affordable
cost. And everyone is entitled to be
reimbursed for every loss.

Consequently, more people are
suing. And they're suing for
greater
amounts than ever before. More and
more daims for non-economic
damages like pain and suffering and
punitive damages are being filed.

Judges and juries are going along
with the psychology of entitlement,
awarding more and higher settle-
ments than ever before.

All of this puts pressure on rates.
Insurance companies are required to
see that enough money is on hand to
cover losses as they occur. So rates are
based on expected claims.

On the other hand, it is impos-
sible for manufacturers and sellers to
anticipate every injury or damage
resulting in the use of their products.

Here's the story behind the
high cost of product liability insurance.
And some proposed solutions for
your consideration

Currently, the manufacturer or
seller of a product can be sued even
when a user is injured while using
the product improperly
...for
example, using a power saw with the
safety shield removed. Result? You pay
for someone else's carelessness.

Should greater responsibility be
placed on consumers to use products
properly?

Many product liability settle-
ments include large awards for "pain
and suffering." These are non-
economic losses difficult to measure
in dollars and cents, Should there be
limitations on pain and suffering
awards? Should liability be confined to
economic losses such as loss of
income and medical expenses?

The way things stand now, the
manufacturer of a product can be held
liable even when injuries or damages
occur many years after the product was
manufactured.

Result? A large number of
liability suits involve injuries from very
old products, some manufactured 20,
30 or even 40 years ago. What's more,
some have been modified by the
owners and made unsafe.

Here's something else. Most products and equipment were considered safe according to standards in

cases on a contingency fee basis. If the
lawyer's dient wins, the lawyer receives
a percentage, most often 30% or
more of the settlement amount.

Does this encourage filing
questionable lawsuits? Should lawyers'
contingency fees be limited? Or
should things be left as they are to help
the "little guy" who can't otherwise
afford to hire a lawyer?

There really are no easy
answers to the questions asked above.
But you most definitely have a stake
in helping to find solutions.

So be heard, whichever way you
lean on product liability. Write state
and national legislators. Let local
judges know your views.

Better statistics are kept and publicized for Part I crimes. If arson is reclassified, more people who can do something will be made aware of the high cost society pays for arson.

Are these experts right or wrong, in your opinion?

The national conviction rate for
arson is only 1 to 3 percent. One
reason is
poor definition of responsi-
bility for investigation among police
and fire officials, insurance companies
and others. Coordination is loose.
Each expects the others to do the job.
Should these lines of authority and
responsibility be set by legislation?

Many experts contend that
training of arson investigators and
investigation methods should be
beefed up. Agree or disagree?

Legal red tape and lack of a
coordinated national information
system also hinder arson investi-
gation. Should a nationwide infor-
mation gathering and reporting
system be set up? Should it keep care-
ful watch on repeat arson offenders?

Laws governing investigating,
reporting and detecting arson now
differ in many states. Should states
enact uniform legislation?

Speak your mind to state
legislators, state insurance commis-
sioners, local police officials, local fire
department officials and local prosecu
tors. You might save yourself an
insurance rate increase.

"Doctor, meet my lawyer."

The cost of medical care has been
soaring.

One cause is the huge number
of malpractice claims. For The St. Paul,
alone, the number of cases tripled
between 1969 and 1975.

Medical mistakes do happen.
No one questions that. If a doctor or
hospital fouls up, the patient should
be compensated. But less than half of all
claims against doctors and hospitals
result in awards to claimants.

Yet, whether a claim has merit
or not, it costs a great deal for investi-
gation or defense.

One result is, malpractice
insurance premiums have increased
dramatically. This cost is added to
patients' medical bills.

If the present trend of malprac-
tice suits and high awards continues,
the cost of medical care could become
more than society can bear.

There are other disturbing con

sequences, too. For example, the
medical profession Says the skyrocket-
ing number of suits is forcing doctors
and hospitals to practice "defensive
medicine." The idea: To build in
advance as strong a defense as possible
against potential malpractice suits.

Defensive medicine includes
things like unnecessary X-rays. Send-
ing patients to hospitals when they
could be treated properly in the doctor's
office. Et cetera. All of which add to
your cost of medical care.

Further, to avoid malpractice con-
cerns some doctors are switching to
lower-risk specialties. Or cutting back
on high risk medical treatment such
as radiotherapy and electroshock treat-
ments. Or quitting their practice
altogether.

Some doctors are even practicing
without malpractice insurance.
The cost of the medical
malpractice crisis is more than