class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs


« Fallacies of probability: "Panel Seeks Better Disciplining of Doctors" | New York-area hospitals »

January 06, 2005

Question that answers itself

Why is an Alabama Trial Lawyers Association blog arguing that record profits by property insurers is evidence that liability reform isn't needed for class actions, asbestos, and medical malpractice? I suppose they expect property insurers are supposed to subsidize the completely different medical malpractice mutual insurers out of the goodness of their hearts. And never mind that the profitability of property insurers is measured over timeframes much longer than a single year.

Posted by Ted Frank at 07:22 PM | TrackBack (2)




Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.