A question for the law savvy

[Chris]

I understand the need for tort reform in some form, but I don't understand how the this is legal or Constitutional.

In Pennsylvania you have a choice of limited tort or full tort in your car insurance. The former takes away your right to sue for anything but medical costs, out-of-packet expenses, and repairs or replacement of you car using certain guidelines. The latter gives you unlimited rights to sue.

You have to purchase your rights however from the insurance companies themselves. The cost is upward of $600 a year added to you car insurance.

IOW, you have rights if you can afford to buy them, and if you can't afford it, too bad, you lose your leverage to get a fair settlement.

Insurance companies have taken advantage of this law by routinely underestimating the costs of repairs/replacement (even though the procedure they are to follow is very clear in the law), and by claiming they are not responsible for certain out-of-pocket expenses that the law makes clear that they are responsible for. They do this because the cost of getting a lawyer to fight them is so high, that most people just take it on the chin.

Is a law that requires you to - pay for your rights or lose them - a Constitutional law? Isn't this discrimination?

[Chris]

Am I to understand that not one lawyer here knows if something is Constitutional or not?

[The_RANDy_Corporation]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR> Is a law that requires you to - pay for your rights or lose them - a Constitutional law? Isn't this discrimination? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. No.

I don't practice in a no-fault state like PA or Michigan. So, my understanding of all the in's and out's of those systems is very limited.

There is no right to a recovery in a personal injury action. Accordingly, legislatures can do with them as they see fit, including enacting no-fault junk like this one. The limits are the unions and plaintiff's attorneys groups vs. the doctors and the insurers and chamber of commerce. So, it's a political question.

It is not discrimination because it is not State action based on a "suspect classification." A common early example of this type of legislation is workers compensation. That replaced one's cause of action against an employer for on the job injuries with a statutory scheme which was said to provide certain, but limited recovery and removed the element of fault from the burden of proof.

Whether or not these are "good" solutions to the so-called "litigation explosion" is debatable.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Randy answered the question. I would like to add one more point. State legislatures often pass “laws” that are unconstitutional. However, in order for these issues to be found unconstitutional, they must be challenged in court, or repealed by the legislature. Until then, these “laws” stand and usually steal $$$$ out of the pockets of the innocent.

[Chris]

Thank you both for your input. It is greatly appreciated.

Randy,
Thank you again for being kind enough to check it out when I mentioned it to you. images/icons/smile.gif

I’m pretty sure I understand everything you said, except for maybe "suspect classification".

Patriotgirl,

I wish I had the money to challenge it. My 19 year old daughter was sitting at a red light at a dead stop, when she was rear-ended by guy doing 100mph because he fell asleep at the wheel (something I think should be treated like drunk driving). She was pushed 33 feet along the road, then 60 more feet up an embankment until her car finally flipped over. Thankfully it landed on it’s wheels and the truck that caused it didn’t land on top of her, or she wouldn’t be here. Even the police and the EMTs, when they arrived and opened the door and saw her and her girlfriend sitting there crying, were amazed that they survived. From the look of it they thought they were walking up to a fatal accident.

The insurance company is playing games and trying to extort a release from her by holding back on her lost wages and whatever else they are willing to pay. However, they aren’t willing to play all they are required to by law, so she is forced to take it to district court (you don’t need a lawyer there) or get ripped off. If the insurance company loses, they can appeal, then it goes to a higher court. I don’t know if she must hire a lawyer there or if I can help her there. However, the insurance company can keep tying it up and costing you money, and you have no leverage to stop them. So much for being a good driver! images/icons/rolleyes.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Chris... Generally, “suspect classification” speaks to the area of equal protection. Classification examines instances when a state grants a particular class of individuals the right to engage in activity yet denies other individuals the same right. For example, your daughter and the insurance companies (and their client). Unfortunately, there are no clear cut rules deciding when a classification is unconstitutional. In order for a classification to be subject to strict scrutiny, it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. This is legal BS...

[Chris]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by patriotgirl:
.....it must be shown that the state law or its administration is meant to discriminate. This is legal BS...[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It sure sounds like legal BS if I'm understanding you right. Do you mean that even if a law does discriminate, if that wasn't it's intention then it's considered constitutional?