We told you earlier about attempts in the Oklahoma state Senate to prohibit pre-settlement financing. Fortunately, for thousands of struggling victims there, Senate Bill 1780 looks to be stalled. But that hasn’t stopped the tort reform movement from waging its war in other states. The most recent attempt to keep injured plaintiffs out of court is Connecticut’s House Bill 5419. Unlike Oklahoma, Connecticut’s legislation would just regulate interest rates, not outlaw the entire industry. Without eliminating pre-settlement financing outright, plaintiffs would still have a valuable resource at their disposal, one which presents a big threat to big business. Cue the Connecticut Chamber of Commerce…
First, Sheridan claims our industry “seek[s] out plaintiffs,” which couldn’t be further from the truth. At USClaims, we don’t market to clients – only attorneys. Our clients are referred by their attorneys, and every financing request is rigorously reviewed by our staff attorneys. We never pressure clients into financing, and we never would.
Sheridan’s claim that we “seek out plaintiffs” is a complete misrepresentation of our industry that should disqualify him from the debate. His implication is that we fund frivolous lawsuits, pressuring plaintiffs to sue. We explicitly do not fund lawsuits, and our in-house legal counsel scrutinizes every case to ensure that we’re only providing support to plaintiffs with legitimate claims.
Second, after acknowledging that injury victims are often “in tough financial situations and in need of cash,” he dismisses their needs by demanding that these “vulnerable people” be cut off from the support they so desperately need. Sheridan is correct on one thing: most plaintiffs do face almost insurmountable financial pressures while awaiting a verdict or settlement. Too hurt to work, facing mounting medical bills and possible eviction or foreclosure, these victims need financial support to keep their heads above water. And thanks to big business interests like Sheridan’s Chamber, the average personal injury claim can take upwards of three years to settle. Corporations and insurance companies have the resources to stall settlements, which is precisely why pre-settlement financing is so crucial. Our industry helps level the playing field for consumers, helping them wage a fair fight for the compensation they deserve. If Sheridan had his way, though, these “vulnerable people” would have no recourse when they find themselves “in tough financial situations and in need of cash.”
Finally, Sheridan laughably suggests that our industry was intimately involved in the crafting of Connecticut’s legislation, a claim that, considering the Chamber’s own history, is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Chambers of Commerce have long been consulted to help draft legislation reforming our justice system. Big tobacco, pharmaceuticals, and insurance companies have long funded a multimillion dollar lobbying effort to get pro-business legislation passed. It might seem odd that big business would be consulted on legal reforms, something you might turn to scholars, professors, judges, or attorneys for, but many politicians have pushed tort reforms as economic boosters – largely at the behest of their corporate contributors. So, has our industry consulted with elected officials? Yes, and we’re proud of it. The American Legal Finance Association acted independently to draft a set of industry best practices, and we’ve worked with legislatures and regulators to advance responsible standards. We’re committed to providing injured victims with the resources they need to pursue justice, whereas the Chamber is more concerned with shutting courthouse doors on consumers.
All in all, Tony Sheridan’s op-ed is a great piece of tort reform propaganda, but it shouldn’t be read as an objective piece of legislative commentary. At the end of the day, the Chamber wants to limit their liability in our justice system, and they’re willing to exploit injured victims to do it.
{ 0 comments }
