10 ms·
They might have a tough time getting re-insured after gross negligence, but insurance that covers legal settlements for this kind of thing is normal and expecte
by icelancer 4y ago
They might have a tough time getting re-insured after gross negligence, but insurance that covers legal settlements for this kind of thing is normal and expected for almost all medium to large businesses to carry - even my small business carries it (and maybe many more do). It's simply too dangerous to operate in the current American legal environment without this kind of insurance, though it is quite expensive.
- hilbert42 4y agoRight, I'm not in the US even though I've been there many times including having worked there and I've relatives who live there. I suppose I should have given that more thought as I'm well aware of the high litigation factor in the US. Where I am it's significantly less. The trouble with litigation taken to extremes and outrageously high payouts is that it puts a high overhead on everyone who does business. In some ways I'm surprised there hasn't been a significant backlash against this.
- icelancer 4y ago>> The trouble with litigation taken to extremes and outrageously high payouts is that it puts a high overhead on everyone who does business. In some ways I'm surprised there hasn't been a significant backlash against this. All the sums are pretty small, so people just see it as the cost of doing business. In a sense it's true. People love the UK "loser pays" system but it really discourages your average person from filing a lawsuit they don't feel 95% to win. The American legal system allows for plaintiffs to abuse the system, but the upside is that filing lawsuits for recompense is easier for your average person. Everything has tradeoffs. Not saying it's perfect here, but my mind was at least shifted slightly when the above was explained to me.