Am I an idiot? Low experience; high performance

------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?



My Dear Mr. Barrow:

Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums for
a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so. It
was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
news

"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?



My Dear Mr. Barrow:

Within the current thread, I have stated that I no longer trust insurance
company statistics for the determination of individual policy risks--which
was stated in the context of a pilot's experience and insurance premiums
for
a higher performance aircraft. Later in this thread, I stated that, in my
personal experience, many of the people and entities who cite insurance
rules as their reasons for various regulations are not being truthful.

Dear Mr. Dohm,

Sounds like your comprehension of statistics is lacking; here's a couple key
words: 1) population, and 2) sample.

Also, it sounds like your grasp of the current state of liability is, shall
we say, stunted?


My opinion of the underlying reasons for what you call " liabilityphobia"
has not changed in many years, and you can search if you care to do so.
It
was not the isurance companies, although they are not a source of any
solution--for reasons which should be mathematically obvious.

Seems your math skills are on par with your statistical skills and your
grasp of legal liability as well.

Get a clue (and maybe get on medication for your paranoia).

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news9MBi.62496
:


"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

In article ,
Judah wrote:

"Matt Barrow" wrote in news9MBi.62496
:


"Peter Dohm" wrote in message
. ..
------much snipped----- have you ever considered the source of our
current
liabilityphobia?



Yes, and I have expounded sufficiently within the recent past.

So, with such scholastical and empirical research you blame insurance
companies?

Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current state
of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be "settle
first, ask questions later") approach to liability distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
"settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.

When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an uninsured
individual?

It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Orval Fairbairn wrote in
news
Do you mean to imply that insurance has played no part in the current
state of our nation's "sue first, ask questions later" (or should it be
"settle first, ask questions later") approach to liability
distribution?

A couple of large awards cam do wonders for insurance sales (at any
price)!

Not to mention the $$$$ that lawyers and claimants see in their eyes when
they can sue someone who is backed by an insurance company.

When is the last time you heard of a large cash settlement from an
uninsured
individual?

It's not the actuarie's fault, no. But it doesn't change the fact that the
system is screwed up, and as big a part of the problem as anything else.

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I would
repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which they
know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it would reduce
the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect. The real benefit
would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" wrote in
:

If I could do one, and only one, thing to repair the entire system; I
would repeal the doctrine of "strict liability."

I really think that a lot of landlords are simply giving excuses which
they know will be difficult for customers to verify or disprove; it
would reduce the motivation--and that is just a beneficial side effect.
The real benefit would be to stop a tremendous economic drain.

I'm not a legal expert, but I believe the bigger issue is that there is no
downside in a contingency lawsuit. There need to be consequences brought to the
loser of a legal action if he initiated it.


Otherwise the legal system stands to protect the rich instead of the
innocent...