4 ms·
There is nothing you said that we disagree with. My point is that it makes far more sense to have insurance lawyers deal with this. It’s a much better way of a
by hahahacorn 1y ago
There is nothing you said that we disagree with.
My point is that it makes far more sense to have insurance lawyers deal with this. It’s a much better way of aligning incentives to have large insurance companies pressure the government to operate better than individuals.
- mindslight 1y agoAttorneys did deal with this. Courts decided against the victim. Courts have decided against the victims in much larger cases, where even more money would have been spent on attorneys. Fundamentally, there has to be a cause of action in order for insurance companies to apply any "pressure".
- hahahacorn 1y agoThe attorneys you buy, and the hours and angles they’re willing to explore for a single $16k payout is very different than the attorneys your insurance company buys for 50 $50k payouts.
- mindslight 1y agoWhy are you putting so much faith in an idea that more attorneys will necessarily prevail? This seems in the neighborhood of the just world fallacy. This article references an earlier event where a $500k house was destroyed - one and a half orders of magnitude larger - with the same legal outcome. Is it that hard to believe that the state has excepted itself (and its agents) from legal liability?