"Juan E Jimenez" wrote in message
. ..
I don't disagree that we need tort reform, but I do disagree that all
lawsuits that are settled out of court have no merit, or are settled
solely
for economic reasons. Many times suits are settled because the defendant
realized that there's no way he/she can win. I think you know that as well
as I do.

SNIP

The problem is that only the folks on the side that settled know the real
reason and right now, that is Chuck since he was a principal party to the
reason for the settlement. He has indicated, to my satisfaction, that the
reason behind the settlement was similar to the "preservation" information
expressed by a previous poster. That clearly is not something that
reasonable people would argue constitutes a "lose" situation. One could
argue that the plaintiff also "lost" since they did not get the huge
settlement that they felt a jury might award. I guess the old adage that
there are no winners, only losers in court probably applies. (Yes, I know,
someone will argue that there are winners - the lawyers. However, I am
thinking only of the plaintiff and defendant.)

Everyone else remarking about the "reason" behind the settlement (summarized
as win/lose, or, perhaps not-lose/lose) is simply speculating about things
not directly knowable. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I
must take Chuck at his word. Enough folks have expressed similar
experiences that clearly demonstrate "preservation" is a very strong
motivator in settling, not fear of losing because the facts are against the
defendant.

Michael Pilla