Wednesday, September 21, 2005

On Katrina Redux

Clay raises some very interesting points in his remarks regarding the potential impact of bad faith on future jury verdicts in the southern states of Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida, among others -- I think that where he and I disagree is on whether those states tend to be more friendly in general towards plaintiffs than other regions of the country, not on whether an insurance company should be held responsible for bad faith dealings with clients (of course they should, though perhaps there are some who would disagree). It is interesting to consider whether the determination that a claim is arguable or not, and actually gets to court, depends in large part on whether a judge sitting on a summary judgment motion views the facts as reasonably subject to dispute, and of course a judge's views on the merits or lack thereof of tort reform and other issues can play a role in that regard. How often do two judges see the same set of facts and rule differently?

On another front, it looks like there will be a retrial of the case against Oliver Diaz et al. in Mississippi.

Philip Monte, Ph.D., J.D.


Post a Comment

<< Home