The frustrating economics of aviation

smackey wrote:

As mr Sondrecker requested- let's have some facts. Opinionated
diatribe by Henrique and others without facts is prety much the order
of the day for them and their ilk. PLEASE-give me some specifics!!!
There aren't any. The American judicial system based upon the
centuries-old concept of a jury of one's peers is second to none.

FACT: The American Insurance Association published a report " Premium
Deceit: The Failure of 'Tort Reform' to Cut Insurance Prices"
(March,2002), which found, following a 14 year study, that there was
no relation between tort restrictions and insurance rates.
This study was consistent with the National Association of
Attorneys General:
"The facts do not bear out the allegations of an explosion in
litigation or in claim size, nor do they bear out the
allegations of a financial disaster suffered by property/casualty
insurers today. They finally do not support any correlation between
the current crisis in availability and affordability of insurance and
such litigation explosion. The available data indicate that the
causes of, and therefore solutions to, the current crisis lie with the
insurance industry itself."

It is pretty amusing that a (self-proclaimed) tort lawyer posts to an aviation forum, of all places, to say that tort reform
is not needed. It is ironic because aviation is one of the few industries that have had protections placed against jackpot
justice tort suits, with stellar results. You don't need an insurance industry study to learn that Cessna built a new
factory and started building piston airplanes again after the General Aviation Revitalization Act, with its statue of repose,
was made law. Or that Piper was able to have a fighting chance of keeping insurance and emerging from bankruptcy
successfully.

And then the same tort engineer proclaims that protectins against jackpot justice don't reduce insurance costs. Sure that's
why my father, previously an orthopedic surgeon in Nevada had to move to California. California doesn't allow unlimited
punitive damages and its malpractice insurance premiums are orders of magnitude lower than Nevada as a result. That's if you
can get malpractice insurance at all. It was either move or leave the medical profession. A friend of his in Nevada had to
stop practicing altogether even though he loved to treat people. Neither of them had either been sued. And that story is
being repeated around the country in many states. Yet the special interest tort engineers, assisted by their paid peers in
the legislators, insist that tort reform does not help. This is in spite of the fact of the success in states such as
California and Lousiana. Good thing we have tort men like John Edwards who successfully convince juries that innocent
doctors are responsible for celebral palsy as they collect their 40% of millions and millions of jackpot money. No small
wonder why so many hospitals can't afford the insurance they need to stay in business and are closing left and right across
the country.