I think that is an underestimate. Eliminate the ads on television would be a good start.

A new study estimates the economic burden of the tort system at $443 billion a year, or 2.1% of GDP.

We always knew trial lawyers were filling their pockets, but it’s still a surprise to learn how much they’ve been emptying ours. The total economic cost of the U.S. tort system in 2020 was $443 billion, according to a recent study by the Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform. That’s 2.1% of GDP, and it works out to $3,621 per household.



Only a small percentage of American families are involved in tort cases or class-action lawsuits in a given year, but the burden of jackpot payouts is carried by nearly everyone. The costs spread through the economy in the form of higher insurance premiums that fall on nearly every family, either directly (car insurance) or indirectly (medical malpractice or product-liability insurance).

And costs are rising. Between 2016 and 2020 the tort system grew 6% a year, the study says, more than inflation and GDP growth. Commercial liability grew the fastest, at 7% a year. Also alarming is that only half the money goes to injured parties. “We estimate that only 53 percent of the total expenditures of the tort system were paid to claimants,” the authors write. In other words, “for every dollar paid in compensation to claimants, 88 cents were paid in legal and other costs.”

The boom in tort costs is owing to the boom in litigation financing, in which investors fund lawsuits and then claim a portion of the winnings. In a recent Litigation Finance Survey conducted by Bloomberg, three quarters of litigation funders reported their business had grown in the past year. Litigation has a particular appeal for investors when the economy is down, since the odds of success in a lawsuit are independent of the stock market.



State judicial systems vary in how much the tort system cost residents. Households in such states as Maine, South Dakota and New Hampshire absorb about $2,000 a year in tort costs, according to the Chamber study. Residents of California, Florida and New Jersey, which are more plaintiff-friendly, bear about $4,500. Pity New Yorkers who are shouldering some $5,400 a year. Florida is a particular embarrassment on this list given its GOP-led government.

The tort system warps the economy in broader ways, too. Litigation costs make businesses slower to debut new products, since they must first assess potential liability risk. Big companies that are setting up new factories weigh the litigation and insurance costs in the states they’re considering, and manufacturing overseas might be cheaper.

We’re hard pressed to think of another industry whose existence costs the average American family more than $3,000 a year. Too bad there isn’t a way to sue the plaintiffs bar for a refund.

LINK:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/h..._opin_pos_6#cxrecs_s

While the system may be abused by some lawyers and people, I'm not willing to constrain the system. It will tamp down the legitimate people while it will not stop the ones who game the system.

I want to hear proposals rather than "it's costing us this much!"

My proposal is banning TV ads shilling for business. Pretty simple. In twenty minutes every morning there are six ads for attorneys from local personal auto injury to large class action suits for those exposed to asbestos or drinking the water at Camp Lejeune. It is sickening. Who doesn't know they can sue if they feel they have been injured?

So, what you are saying is that torts are a 443 billion dollar a year deterrent to companies and individuals otherwise just lying, cheating, stealing, and injuring you without recourse?

Am I, what, supposed to depend on the government to protect me from the wrongdoings of others and make me whole in the event of loss or injury?

*Lawsuits* aren't adding an average cost of $3000 to the average family: that's the added cost of getting everyone to act reasonably in their day-to-day lives. Go visit a developing country and see what it's like when you don't have a court system that is set up to allow individuals to seek recourse against others.

Elon Musk said something about how surprised he was at the speed at which he was able to open up a factory in Texas verses California. What caught my attention was when he said he would likely have faced multiple law suits before he would be able to open up a new factory in CA. He then said his most recent factory in TX hadn’t received a single law suit.

I’d love to see how the state of California ranks when it comes to lawsuits against businesses.

Back in May Matt Taibbi had a very interesting article on this very subject.

The Lawyers Who Ate California

I did not write the opinion piece, but recognize you practice law. Yeah out of control society. Please give me a break! Just get the fking ads off televison. You think they are needed?

Remember what Shakepeare said..

Yes, the bar needs to be stricter on behavior and discipline.

But advertisements are necessary. Not the “I’m the biggest and baddest jackass” ones, but the class action ones are needed - otherwise you might have lots of people who suffered a small injury and feel they cannot get redress

How do other developed nations survive without the Wild West tort system we have here in the US? It must be chaos over in Europe with all those people being mercilessly abused by unfettered corporate greed and such.

quote:

But advertisements are necessary.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

My objection is the ENDLESS parade of simiar class action ads. Way more than Mike Lindell. The argument that people need to know does not hold water. We are a suit happy society.

quote:

Originally posted by Aeteocles:
So, what you are saying is that torts are a 443 billion dollar a year deterrent to companies and individuals otherwise just lying, cheating, stealing, and injuring you without recourse?

Am I, what, supposed to depend on the government to protect me from the wrongdoings of others and make me whole in the event of loss or injury?

*Lawsuits* aren't adding an average cost of $3000 to the average family: that's the added cost of getting everyone to act reasonably in their day-to-day lives. Go visit a developing country and see what it's like when you don't have a court system that is set up to allow individuals to seek recourse against others.

Yes that's what we're saying, there are hundreds if not thousand of legal firms founded on sending out legal lawsuit threats on the hopes of getting a fast settlement from an insurance carrier. I worked for a firm in an industry that was targeted by these firms, we fought, they quit when they found out there wasn't anything they could win.

John Morgan - For the People, multimillionaire, billions won in lawsuits, multiple million dollar homes in the area for him, his son, daughter, Gulfstream jet, his mantra is they are so big insurance companies fear them, his company alone created a massive increase in homeowner premiums in FL, founding roofclaim.com, hooking up with a much maligned roofer out of ATL, then blanketing any area they found where hail had happened using NOAA and other databases to sell new roofs, sue insurance companies and make millions. So much so the carriers have raised rates here (pre hurricane) as much as 33%, some have stopped writing, some pulling out.

DeSantis and Tallahassee changed FL law to stop these guys, no longer do insurance carriers have to replace whole roofs for partial damage taking the wind out of Morgans sail...

What Pct of the $443 billion is legit, and what is earned by the threat of a suit, who knows. I know a guy that hires attorneys for any damage done, car wreck, motorcycle, doesn't matter and gets recovery settlement offers on every single one. Even keeps higher med coverage on his policy and has sued his own carrier. And there wasn't a lick of real damage anywhere near the payoff.

It's the threat and potential legal cost to fight that is weighed against the settlement. JMO, Little of it has anything to do with right or wrong or righting a wrong....

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
How do other developed nations survive without the Wild West tort system we have here in the US? It must be chaos over in Europe with all those people being mercilessly abused by unfettered corporate greed and such.

With lots more government regulation and restrictions than we have.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Just get the fking ads off televison. You think they are needed?

Damn that pesky First Amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Just get the fking ads off televison. You think they are needed?

Damn that pesky First Amendment.

Bingo! As much as I despise these slip-and-fall cockroaches, nope, you can't be serious prohibiting their TV commercials.

If it weren't for the attorney ads, you wouldn't be able to watch those shows. Same for the pharma ads.

What gets me is that the ads have little to do with the shows, but more with who they think is watching the shows.

Once retired and my wife has the TV on all day - You see these ads are for those without jobs.

quote:

Bingo! As much as I despise these slip-and-fall cockroaches, nope, you can't be serious prohibiting their TV commercials.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nah. Constitution has nothing to do with it. They prohibited tobacco advertising. They can do the same with Pharma and lawyers. As a doc do you not get tired of patients demanding the drugs they saw advertised on television? Pharma ads used to just be in JAMA. Lawyers can use bilboards.
Besides those ads are hazardous to my health, just like smokes.
IMHO ads for lawyers are unprofessional and many attorneys feel the same. Prior to 1977 attorneys could not advertise. I liked that.

IMO the biggest problem is the people who make up juries don't have the guts to say "no you're not getting 3 million, you get $0" Instead of "John Deere really did nothing wrong but we have to award something to the injured party.... we'll just make Deere pay $1 million".

One option could be all punitive awards get paid to the State with no contingency fees from that amount going to attorney. It's really more of a fine anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:

quote:

Bingo! As much as I despise these slip-and-fall cockroaches, nope, you can't be serious prohibiting their TV commercials.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nah. Constitution has nothing to do with it. They prohibited tobacco advertising. They can do the same with Pharma and lawyers. As a doc do you not get tired of patients demanding the drugs they saw advertised on television? Pharma ads used to just be in JAMA. Lawyers can use bilboards.
Besides those ads are hazardous to my health, just like smokes.
IMHO ads for lawyers are unprofessional and many attorneys feel the same. Prior to 1977 attorneys could not advertise. I liked that.

If you think the Constitution has nothing to do with it, then you have taken yourself out of the conversation. Of course it does. Banning tobacco advertising was illegitimate and contrary to the 1st Amendment, too.

Previous bans on lawyer advertising were promulgated by bar associations, which put a different gloss on them since it wasn't the government acting directly, although there was a good argument that the government had delegated that regulation to the bar association.

But the 1st Amendment absolutely is in play here.

The government banning ads -1A, free speech by the constitution simply says the government can't ban you from whatever you wish to say.

Now the Bar, broadcasters, local channels, it's a private business and they could ban them without 1A issues.

100% Federal excise tax on all punitive damages, awards over actual damages incurred, and settlement proceeds over actual economic losses, and much if not all of the nonsense would go away.

If someone suffers damages or injury from another's actions, they should be able to be made whole - no argument here. Compensation over and above that is what is fueling the greed - plaintiffs' greed as well as that of the ambulance-chasers.

"Professional victim" should not be a career path or desired end-game.